From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 18:41:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/16] ref-filter: move get_head_description() from branch.c
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZSs3ZUysusArNK8oXSe7jqqquJyx4=ZtNyqmDsm_iAguQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy48zr4r6.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> -static char *get_head_description(void)
>> -{
>> -     struct strbuf desc = STRBUF_INIT;
>> -     struct wt_status_state state;
>> -     memset(&state, 0, sizeof(state));
>> -     wt_status_get_state(&state, 1);
>> -     if (state.rebase_in_progress ||
>> -         state.rebase_interactive_in_progress)
>> -             strbuf_addf(&desc, _("(no branch, rebasing %s)"),
>> -                         state.branch);
>> -     else if (state.bisect_in_progress)
>> -             strbuf_addf(&desc, _("(no branch, bisect started on %s)"),
>> -                         state.branch);
>> -     else if (state.detached_from) {
>> -             /* TRANSLATORS: make sure these match _("HEAD detached at ")
>> -                and _("HEAD detached from ") in wt-status.c */
>> -             if (state.detached_at)
>> -                     strbuf_addf(&desc, _("(HEAD detached at %s)"),
>> -                             state.detached_from);
>> -             else
>> -                     strbuf_addf(&desc, _("(HEAD detached from %s)"),
>> -                             state.detached_from);
>> -     }
>> -     else
>> -             strbuf_addstr(&desc, _("(no branch)"));
>> -     free(state.branch);
>> -     free(state.onto);
>> -     free(state.detached_from);
>> -     return strbuf_detach(&desc, NULL);
>> -}
>> -
>
> Hmph, the name used to be a good one within the context of
> implementation of "git branch" command, but I have to wonder if it
> is a specific enough name in the global context of the entire
> project.  I also wondered if this sits better in wt-status.c;
> doesn't "git status" do something similar?
>

Yes, `wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)` pretty much does the same, maybe
we can eventually lose this in favor of using that.

> For now, this should do, as I do not think of anything better.
>
> Thanks.

Sure.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak