Re: [PATCH v10 7/9] ls-tree.c: introduce struct "show_tree_data"
- From
Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 14, 2022, 09:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CADMgQSQaE4EtiNXyGKebPyPS_0YTQ=HN+dU89_jD6BgQ1C470A@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <220113.86sftsw1ut.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:07 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> > "show_tree_data" is a struct that packages the necessary fields for > > "show_tree()". This commit is a pre-prepared commit for supporting > > "--format" option and it does not affect any existing functionality. > > Is the only reason this is split off from 9/9 because you're injecting a > 8/9 commit for the coccinelle rule change, and wanted to find some > logical cut-off between the two?
I hope "show_tree()" and "the show_tree_format()" to share this structure, so I made this a pre-prepared and non-functional commit.
After that, in the 9/9, the structure can be used directly and focus on the functionality changes. If we merge this commit with 9/9, 9/9 will contain a part of the changes that let "show_tree()" use the new structure, which has nothing to do with "show_tree_format()" actually, because we designed them to go through different execution logic. So, personally, I prefer not to mix them together.
So, the commit of "show_tree_data()" originally was not for "coccinelle". The only thing that is certain is that coccinelle also should go before 9/9 I think. With regard to 8/9 and 7/9, I think the current order is OK because they're not related.
Show 8 quoted lines
> > For both this & 9/9 this seems to mostly/substantially be code I wrote > and submitted as part of > https://lore.kernel.org/git/RFC-patch-6.7-eac299f06ff-20211217T131635Z-avarab@gmail.com; > > The convention we use in such cases is to retain the "Author" header and > just add your own Signed-off-by to patches you're modifying/splitting > up.
Oops. Sorry for that, I misunderstood it before and I'll be fixed in the next path.
Thanks.