Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] branch: roll show_detached HEAD into regular ref_list

From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 14, 2015, 14:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZQR8dJH_tAJX1wFwgTgsA178C9Ok8CvKUixywTbsUK_Eg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cR42jzxeeqpVh2sMojSCVD7Xg4RF6TDfTeg0y10o-2TLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:

Show 30 quoted lines

> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Moy
>> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> @@ -679,15 +682,20 @@ static int print_ref_list(int kinds, int detached, int verbose, int abbrev, stru
>>>>       if (verbose)
>>>>               maxwidth = calc_maxwidth(&ref_list, strlen(remote_prefix));
>>>>
>>>> -     qsort(ref_list.list, ref_list.index, sizeof(struct ref_item), ref_cmp);
>>>> +     index = ref_list.index;
>>>> +
>>>> +     /* Print detached HEAD before sorting and printing the rest */
>>>> +     if (detached && (ref_list.list[index - 1].kind == REF_DETACHED_HEAD) &&
>>>> +         !strcmp(ref_list.list[index - 1].name, head)) {
>>>> +             print_ref_item(&ref_list.list[index - 1], maxwidth, verbose, abbrev,
>>>> +                            1, remote_prefix);
>>>> +             index -= 1;
>>>> +     }
>>>
>>> I think Eric already mentionned it, but I don't remember the conclusion
>>> and can't find it in the archives. Wouldn't it be cleaner to actually
>>> remove the detached head from the array (do "ref_list.index -= 1"
>>> instead of "index -= 1", and possibly free() what needs to be freed?
>>
>> I think Michael Haggerty mentioned something along those lines...
>
> Specifically, I think you're referring to [1] (?).
>
> [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/276363/focus=276676

No not that, that is handled in the previous patch series.

I can't find the reference either, but the comment was along the lines of what Matthieu just mentioned above, But like I replied on [Patch 6/8] Its taken care of in that particular patch. Here it doesn't seem to be needed.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak