Re: [GSoC][PATCH v4 1/5] remote: rename function omit_name_by_refspec

From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 6, 2025, 10:13 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZQmALUCY1CiJZG-S3fgRvD_wj8ZwSj5dV-9X=f5NpLVfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPhwyn32CmjtKu5ivxS9=AJ-h+5GskDUp=rUGvofv-aWLhH8Ng@mail.gmail.com>

Meet Soni <meetsoni3017@gmail.com> writes:

Show 29 quoted lines

> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 14:30, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Meet Soni <meetsoni3017@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > diff --git a/remote.h b/remote.h
>> > index bda10dd5c8..66ee53411d 100644
>> > --- a/remote.h
>> > +++ b/remote.h
>> > @@ -261,11 +261,7 @@ int resolve_remote_symref(struct ref *ref, struct ref *list);
>> >   */
>> >  struct ref *ref_remove_duplicates(struct ref *ref_map);
>> >
>> > -/*
>> > - * Check whether a name matches any negative refspec in rs. Returns 1 if the
>> > - * name matches at least one negative refspec, and 0 otherwise.
>> > - */
>> > -int omit_name_by_refspec(const char *name, struct refspec *rs);
>> > +int refname_matches_negative_refspec_item(const char *refname, struct refspec *rs);
>> >
>>
>> Nit: The first sentence is now duplicated by the function name as
>> mentioned in the commit message. But aren't we loosing information by
>> removing the second sentence?
>>
> Correct. I considered keeping the second sentence for clarity, but that other
> function signatures in the codebase don’t include comments solely describing
> return values. To maintain consistency with the existing style, I
> opted to remove
> it. Let me know if you think an alternative approach would be better!

I think its okay as-is for now :)

>> >  /*
>> >   * Remove all entries in the input list which match any negative refspec in
>> > --
>> > 2.34.1