From: karthik nayak Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:30:22 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ref-filter: add ref-filter API Message-ID: <555F215E.2050607@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On 05/22/2015 12:10 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, karthik nayak wrote: >> On 05/21/2015 12:37 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: >>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Karthik Nayak >>> wrote: >>>> Makefile | 1 + >>>> ref-filter.c | 73 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> ref-filter.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 121 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 ref-filter.c >>>> create mode 100644 ref-filter.h >>> >>> A shortcoming of this approach is that it's not blame-friendly. >>> Although those of us following this patch series know that much of the >>> code in this patch was copied from for-each-ref.c, git-blame will not >>> recognize this unless invoked in the very expensive "git blame -C -C >>> -C" fashion (if I understand correctly). The most blame-friendly way >>> to perform this re-organization is to have the code relocation (line >>> removals and line additions) occur in one patch. >>> >>> There are multiple ways you could arrange to do so. One would be to >>> first have a patch which introduces just a skeleton of the intended >>> API, with do-nothing function implementations. A subsequent patch >>> would then relocate the code from for-each-ref.c to ref-filter.c, and >>> update for-each-ref.c to call into the new (now fleshed-out) API. >> >> Did you read Junio's suggestion on how I should re-order this WIP patch >> series ? >> That's somewhat on the lines of what you're suggesting. I'll probably be >> going ahead with that, not really sure about how blame works entirely so >> what do you think about that? > > Yes, Junio's response did a much better job of saying what I intended. > Also, his response said something I meant to mention but forgot: > namely that, to ease the review task, code movement should be pure > movement, and not involve other changes. > > Anyhow, follow Junio's advice. He knows what he's talking about. ;-) > Alright, Thanks for clearing that out. Regards, Karthik