Re: [PATCH 09/20] refs: split `ref_cache` code into separate files

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 20, 2017, 17:49 UTC
Message-ID: <20170320174937.xkozsdruyrj44qg2@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <f16c123354404088f9ffef0b0e31d4a9817cb804.1490026594.git.mhagger@alum.mit.edu>

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:33:14PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> The `ref_cache` code is currently too tightly coupled to
> `files-backend`, making the code harder to understand and making it
> awkward for new code to use `ref_cache` (as we indeed have planned).
> Start loosening that coupling by splitting `ref_cache` into a separate
> module.
> 
> This commit moves code, adds declarations, and changes the visibility
> of some functions, but doesn't change any code.
> 
> The modules are still too tightly coupled, but the situation will be
> improved in subsequent commits.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
> ---
>  Makefile             |   1 +
>  refs/files-backend.c | 736 +--------------------------------------------------
>  refs/ref-cache.c     | 512 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  refs/ref-cache.h     | 251 ++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 767 insertions(+), 733 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 refs/ref-cache.c
>  create mode 100644 refs/ref-cache.h

I'm not surprised that stock format-patch didn't treat this as a rename, but I would have thought it would with "-B". It doesn't seem to, though. Perhaps because of the code movement, etc.

It might have been a bit easier to review as separate steps for that reason, but I doubt it's worth going back and re-doing. I'll take your word that nothing substantive changed.

-Peff