Re: [PATCH/RFC] branch.c: Replace `git_config` with `git_config_get_string`

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Jun 16, 2014, 17:29 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqfvj4226o.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <1402908750-24851-1-git-send-email-tanayabh@gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] branch.c: Replace `git_config` with `git_config_get_string`

Here and elsewhere: usually, no capital after :.

Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@gmail.com> writes:

> Original implementation uses a callback based approach which has some
> deficiencies like a convoluted control flow and redundant variables.

"deficiencies" might be a bit strong (the code did work).

> There are total 111 calls in total in all of git codebase. How should I send
> the patches, alphabetically or otherwise?

My advice would be: try as much as possible to split according to the complexity of the patch.

As a reviewer, I find it rather easy to review a large number of trivial and similar changes, but I hate having to switch back to "wow, the author did something tricky, let's try to understand this" in the middle of a trivial series.

(we had this discussion about `...` Vs $(...) and test -a Vs test ... && series, which were essentially very trivial changes, but with subtle bugs introduced and hidden by the volume of trivial changes).

>  branch.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Removing more lines than it adds. I like the patch already ;-).

> diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
> index 660097b..257b1bf 100644
> --- a/branch.c
> +++ b/branch.c

[...]

Show 14 quoted lines

>  int read_branch_desc(struct strbuf *buf, const char *branch_name)
>  {
> -	struct branch_desc_cb cb;
> +	const char *value;
> +	struct branch_desc desc;
>  	struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
>  	strbuf_addf(&name, "branch.%s.description", branch_name);
> -	cb.config_name = name.buf;
> -	cb.value = NULL;
> -	if (git_config(read_branch_desc_cb, &cb) < 0) {
> +	desc.config_name = name.buf;
> +	desc.value = NULL;
> +	value = git_config_get_string(desc.config_name);
> +	git_config_string(&desc.value, desc.config_name, value);

You're ignoring the return value of git_config_string, which is an error code. It shouldn't harm, because the code is non-zero iff desc.value is set to non-NULL, but you may want to write the code as

if (git_config_string(...)) {
	strbuf_release(...);
	return -1;
}

In any case, the patch sounds good to me.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/