Re: [PATCH v2 21/25] fetch: define shallow boundary with --shallow-exclude

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm, can't this be simplified to:
>>>
>>>     if (skip_prefix(arg, "--shallow-exclude=", &value)) {
>>>         if (!args.deepen_not) {
>>>             args.deepen_not = xmalloc(sizeof(*args.deepen_not));
>>>             string_list_init(args.deepen_not, 1);
>>>         }
>>>         string_list_append(args.deepen_not, value);
>>>         continue;
>>>     }
>>
>> args.deepen_not is const, so no, the compiler will complain at
>> string_list_init and string_list_append. Dropping "const" is one
>> option, if you prefer.
>
> Yes, dropping 'const' was implied. I didn't examine it too deeply, but
> it did not appear as if there would be any major fallout from dropping
> 'const'. It feels a bit cleaner to keep it all self-contained than to
> have that somewhat oddball static string_list*, but it's not such a
> big deal that I'd insist upon a rewrite.
>
>>> Or, perhaps even better, declare it as plain 'struct string_list
>>> deepen_not' in struct fetch_pack_args, rather than as a pointer, and
>>> then in cmd_fetch_pack():
>>>
>>>     memset(&args, 0, sizeof(args));
>>>     args.uploadpack = "git-upload-pack";
>>>     string_list_init(&args.deepen_not, 1);
>>
>> There's another place fetch_pack_args variable is declared, in
>> fetch_refs_via_pack(), and we would need to string_list_copy() from
>> transport->data->options.deepen_not and then free it afterward. So I
>> think it's not really worth it.