Re: [PATCH 2/3] pager: factor out a helper to prepare a child process to run the pager
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 17, 2016, 00:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160217003215.GC1187@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqk2m4kyfw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:49:55PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> > And if you put the git_pager() call inside prepare_pager_args (which I > > agree would be cleaner), we just have: > > > > void prepare_pager_args(struct child_process *pager_process); > > > > which is pretty self-explanatory (though it might need a new name; I'd > > be tempted to call it init_pager_process() or something, and actually > > have it do the child_process_init() to make sure it is working with a > > sane clean slate). > > Conceptually I am on the same page, but I am not sure how well that > interacts with what "git am -i" codepath wants to do, though. > > One big difference between the "we'll feed our output to pager" > codepath and "we'll spawn a pager to let a file on the filesystem be > read" codepath is that the former needs to call git_pager() and > check the NULL-ness of the return value to decide that it does not > want to spawn a pager and let the standard output just go straight > to the outside world. The latter, on the other hand, does want to > spawn something to cause the file to be presented to the end user > even git_pager() returns NULL. > > And that is why I didn't make this helper call git_pager() itself.
That makes sense. I didn't dig into it carefully. I saw the "pager=cat" thing in the context of your diff to git-am, and assumed it was weird fallback that should be done by the regular pager infrastructure. But it's the exact thing you're talking about here.
So of all of the things I suggested, I think the non-varargs one that takes "pager" as a string makes the most sense.
-Peff