From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 18:51:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] format-patch: simplify get_notes_arg parameters Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Fri, Oct 2, 2026, at 18:50, Junio C Hamano wrote: > kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com writes: > >> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk >> >> 85bd88a7 (revision: add rdiff_log_arg to rev_info, 2025-09-25) added >> `rdiff_log_arg` to `struct rev_info`. I changed `get_notes_arg` by >> simply replacing the first argument with an access on this struct >> member. But the second argument was already `struct rev_info`. So I >> should have just simplified to *only* passing that parameter. Let’s do >> that now. > > The readers do not necessarily want to read the "author's journey" > narrative in log messages. Let's be more detached and objective, > like > > 85bd88a7e8 (revision: add rdiff_log_arg to rev_info, 2025-09-25) > updated get_notes_args() to push into rev->rdiff_log_arg instead > of an explicit strvec, but left the rev argument as the second > parameter and strvec *arg as the first. Simplify the signature of > get_notes_args() to take only struct rev_info *rev, dropping the > redundant strvec *arg parameter. I don’t get what objective improvement there is by replacing “I did” with “it happened”. This is not a gratuitous incidental biography but just says what your alternative says, only with a personal pronoun, less technical diction, and one word longer. But I think we can shorten it with a little show-don’t-tell: 85bd88a7 (revision: add rdiff_log_arg to rev_info, 2025-09-25) added `rdiff_log_arg` to `struct rev_info`. `get_notes_arg` was changed to take a second parameter, namely that member: get_notes_args(&(rev.rdiff_log_arg), &rev); But this is obviously unnecessary; we can just use `&rev`. Now is also a good time to format this `for_each...` line since it’s gotten quite long. That’s 16 words less than my first version. > > perhaps? > >> Now is also a good time to format this `for_each...` line since it’s >> gotten quite long. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk >> --- >> >> Notes (testing): >> just compile tested > > The code change looks good. As long as this stays as a static helper > function, this is not a loss of flexibility but a simplification of > the calling convention. > Thanks for reviewing.