Re: [PATCH] Small cache_tree_write refactor.

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Sep 25, 2007, 10:38 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709251135530.28395@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <20070925082341.DF412BDBCF@madism.org>

Hi,

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> --- a/cache-tree.c
> +++ b/cache-tree.c
> @@ -369,10 +369,8 @@ int cache_tree_update(struct cache_tree *it,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static void write_one(struct cache_tree *it,
> -		       char *path,
> -		       int pathlen,
> -			   struct strbuf *buffer)
> +static void write_one(struct strbuf *buffer, struct cache_tree *it,
> +                      const char *path, int pathlen)

I don't know... is this really needed? In some other projects, the coding standard prefers the parameters in "in"..."out" order.

Ciao, Dscho