Re: [PATCH 1/3] pack-write: use more idiomatic strbuf usage for packname construction

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Sep 7, 2021, 22:21 UTC
Message-ID: <YTfl7U93ttUQu2jc@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <patch-1.3-0e6ef07ce00-20210907T193600Z-avarab@gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 09:42:36PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> Change code added in 5889271114a (finish_tmp_packfile():use strbuf for

s/Change code/Code/ ?

(I wondered also if the missing space in 5889271114a's subject line was intentional, but it does appear in the original commit.)

Reading this patch, I'm not sure I agree that this makes the later changes any easier. To be honest, replacing things like

Show 10 quoted lines

>  	if (rev_tmp_name) {
> -		strbuf_addf(name_buffer, "%s.rev", hash_to_hex(hash));
> -		if (rename(rev_tmp_name, name_buffer->buf))
> +		strbuf_addf(&sb, "%s%s.rev", tmp_basename->buf,
> +			    hash_to_hex(hash));
> +		if (rename(rev_tmp_name, sb.buf))
>  			die_errno("unable to rename temporary reverse-index file");
> -
> -		strbuf_setlen(name_buffer, basename_len);
> +		strbuf_reset(&sb);

Does not much help or hurt the readability, at least in my opinion. One advantage of the pre-image is that we're doing less copying, but that's probably splitting hairs at this point.

So, I would probably be just as happy without this patch. You mentioned that it makes the later changes easier, but I couldn't come up with why. I may be missing something, in which case it may be helpful to know what that is and how it makes this change necessary.

Thanks, Taylor