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

From: Meet Soni <meetsoni3017@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 4, 2025, 13:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPhwyn32CmjtKu5ivxS9=AJ-h+5GskDUp=rUGvofv-aWLhH8Ng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZShqCkyabVK2PU-XXpx9QS3_W=9QMH6ioJB=t8Ec2NYqg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 14:30, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>
> 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!

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