Re: [PATCH 1/2] run-command: introduce function to prepare auto-maintenance process

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 17, 2024, 15:53 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8r1c9ea2.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <929b6bfa08132523ee97f5adc376c3600f779a99.1713334241.git.ps@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> The `run_auto_maintenance()` function is responsible for spawning a new
> `git maintenance run --auto` process. To do so, it sets up the `sturct
> child_process` and then runs it by executing `run_command()` directly.
> This is rather inflexible in case callers want to modify the child
> process somewhat, e.g. to redirect stderr or stdout.
>
> Introduce a new `prepare_auto_maintenance()` function to plug this gap.

I guess the mention of "inflexible" and "redirection" above refers to some incompatibile behaviour we would introduce if we just replaced the manual spawning of "gc --auto" with a call to run_auto_maintenance(), but I would have expected that will be solved by making the interface to run_auto_maintenance() richer, not forcing the callers that would want to deviate from the norm to write the second half of the run_auto_maintenance() themselves.

Show 7 quoted lines

> +int run_auto_maintenance(int quiet)
> +{
> +	struct child_process maint = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> +	if (!prepare_auto_maintenance(quiet, &maint))
> +		return 0;
>  	return run_command(&maint);
>  }

But given that the "second half" is to just call run_command() on the prepared child control structure, it is probably not a huge deal. It just felt somewhat an uneven API surface that 'quiet' can be controlled with just a single bit and doing anything more than that would require the caller to go into the structure to tweak.

Will queue.  Thanks.