Re: [PATCH 2/5] shallow: extract a header file for shallow-related functions

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Apr 30, 2020, 00:59 UTC
Message-ID: <20200430005945.GA23090@syl.local>
In-Reply-To: <20200430002154.231855-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>

Hi Jonathan,

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:21:54PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:

> First of all, I couldn't apply these patches neither on latest master
> (86ab15cb15 ("The fourth batch", 2020-04-28)) nor on its 2 immediate
> ancestors - what is the base of these patches? (Or is there something
> wrong with my workflow?)

Yes, I should have mentioned in the cover letter that this is based on 'tb/reset-shallow' which is should be part of Junio's next push to master. I didn't mention it because I figured that it would be on master by the time anyone wanted to look at these patches ;).

Anyhow, apologies. It should apply cleanly on any branch that has 'tb/reset-shallow' already.

Show 17 quoted lines

> I'll review based on the patches themselves, but what I've seen looks
> good so far.
>
> > diff --git a/builtin.h b/builtin.h
> > index 2b25a80cde..2e701a023c 100644
> > --- a/builtin.h
> > +++ b/builtin.h
> > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >  #include "strbuf.h"
> >  #include "cache.h"
> >  #include "commit.h"
> > +#include "shallow.h"
>
> It's a pity that builtin.h has to be modified in this way, but I see
> that it's necessary - a few files that include builtin.h (at least git.c
> and builtin/bisect--helper.c) assume that they have shallow function
> access through this header.

Yeah :/.

> Once I manage to apply these patches myself, I'll verify with
> --color-moved that the lines moved as I expect, but otherwise patch 1
> and 2 look good.

Thanks.

Thanks, Taylor