Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] repository: move 'repository_format_worktree_config' to repo scope

From: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com>
Date: Jun 12, 2023, 20:23 UTC
Message-ID: <kl6lr0qgfmzo.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <dd21767c-7c66-cf42-1a64-954a069dc466@github.com>

Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Even if we updated the only other 'repository_format' value
> ('repository_format_precious_objects') to be copied the same way, the
> benefit we'd get from eliminating a couple of lines of code duplication
> wouldn't necessarily outweigh the the extra complexity of a new abstraction
> - which may or may not need special-casing based on who's calling it -
> and/or the risk associated with changing behavior if we want to eliminate
> those special cases. IOW, I don't feel it's a definitive net improvement in
> this situation.

I see. In the process of doing this digging, I've become quite convinced that the risk is minimal. I definitely want the refactor to happen, but I suppose it's not reasonable for you to bear the risk.

I'll send a follow up patch on top of your series that implements the cleanup I hope to see, and I'd be happy to give _that_ series a Reviewed-by (though it's a bit weird since one of the patches will be mine). It'll touch the same lines twice, but at least the patches will be owned by the people who care about them the most.

Show 19 quoted lines

>> E.g. we could support both deep and shallow copying, like:
>> 
>>   /*
>>    * Copy members from a repository_format to repository.
>>    *
>>    * If 'src' will no longer be read after copying (e.g. it will be
>>    * cleared soon), pass a nonzero value so that pointer members will be
>>    * moved to 'dest' (NULL-ed and shallow copied) instead of being deep
>>    * copied.
>>    */
>>   void copy_repository_format(struct repository *dest,
>>                               struct repository_format *src,
>>                               int take_ownership);
>
> Unless we find that we *need* to support both, this approach would be more
> harmful than helpful. If it doesn't matter whether the copy is shallow or
> deep, this design proliferates that meaningless distinction in a way that
> can easily confuse developers (or at least create more work for them as try
> to try to understand it) if they ever want to change or use the function.

Fair enough. I agree we're better off figuring out if the need exists before trying to support it.