Re: [GSoC][PATCH 1/2] clone: extract function from copy_or_link_directory

>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:39 PM Matheus Tavares
> <matheus.bernardino@usp.br> wrote:
> >
> > Extract dir creation code snippet from copy_or_link_directory to its own
> > function named mkdir_if_missing. This change will help removing
> > copy_or_link_directory's explicit recursion, which will be done in patch
> > "clone: use dir-iterator to avoid explicit dir traversal".
>
> "which will be done in a following patch" is enough and perhaps even
> better as the following patch can then be changed independently of
> this one.
>

> > Also makes
> > code more readable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@usp.br>
>
> [...]
>
> > +static void mkdir_if_missing(const char *pathname, mode_t mode)
> > +{
> > +       /*
> > +        * Create a dir at pathname unless there's already one.
> > +        */
> > +       struct stat buf;
>
> I know that the variable was already called "buf" in
> copy_or_link_directory() and that there are a few other places in the
> code where a 'struct stat' is called "buf", but in most places the
> 'struct stat' variables are called "st":
>
> $ git grep 'struct stat ' '*.c' | perl -ne 'print "$1\n" if (m/struct
> stat ([\w_]+)/);' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
>     129 st
>       6 sb
>       3 buf
>       2 statbuf
>       1 st_stdin
>       1 st_git
>       1 statbuffer
>       1 st2
>       1 st1
>       1 nst
>       1 loginfo
>       1 cwd_stat
>       1 argstat
>
> So I wonder if we should use "st" here instead of "buf". We also often
> use "buf" for 'struct strbuf' variables which can be confusing.
>