Re: [PATCH 1/2] rev list add option accepting revision constraints on standard input

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sep 6, 2006, 04:46 UTC
Message-ID: <7vk64ha9fp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vpseaarrl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Is calling setup_revisions() on the same revs like this many
> times safe?  I do not think so, especially what is after the
> primary "for()" loop in the function.
>
> I was sort-of expecting that you would instead replace that
> primary for() loop in setup_revisions() with some sort of
> callback...

I take half of the above back. Even after setup_revisions() returns, adding more revisions via add_pending_object() is safe. However, the postprocessing done in setup_revisions() after its main loop, while I do not think they would crash when called twice, would be very wasteful.

And ``callback'' interface is usually very cumbersome to use, so we probably would want to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

I've outlined an alternative implementation in two patches; I'll be sending them out shortly.