From: Amisha Chhajed Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 20:23:08 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Adding string_list_sort_u which sorts a list then deduplicates it. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 at 03:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Amisha Chhajed writes: > > > string_list_remove_duplicates is almost always preceeded by > > string_list_sort, hence adding string_list_sort_u which dedupliactes > > post sorting. > > The usual way to compose a log message of this project is to > > - Give an observation on how the current system works in the > present tense (so no need to say "Currently X is Y", or > "Previously X was Y" to describe the state before your change; > just "X is Y" is enough), and discuss what you perceive as a > problem in it. > > - Propose a solution (optional---often, problem description > trivially leads to an obvious solution in reader's minds). > > - Give commands to somebody editing the codebase to "make it so", > instead of saying "This commit does X". > > in this order. > > To those who have been intimately following the discussion, it often > is understandable without some of the above, but we are not writing > for those who review the patches. We are primarily writing for future > readers of "git log" who are not aware of the review discussion we > have on list, so we should give something to prepare them by setting > the stage and stating the objective first, before going into how the > patch solved it. > > With that in mind, perhaps something along this line ... > > > Subject: string-list: add string_list_sort_u() that mimics "sort -u" > > Many callsites of string_list_remove_duplicates() call it > immediately after calling string_list_sort(). It is > understandable because the former requires the string-list to be > sorted, but at the same time, it is clear that these places are > sorting only to remove duplicates and for no other reason. > > Introduce a helper function string_list_sort_u() that combines > these two calls that often appear together, to help simplify > these callsites. > > ... probably? > > The same comment applies to the way the other patch is explained. > > Thanks. > Very helpful, thank you so much, i will keep in mind.