Re: [PATCH v6 03/13] pkt-line: add packet_write_fmt_gently()

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2016, 17:10 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqinunihgl.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <6A26AA14-E393-492C-ADE0-3206DF78AFF6@gmail.com>

Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> I agree with your criticism of the code duplication. 
>
> However, I thought it would be OK, as Peff already 
> tried to refactor it...
> http://public-inbox.org/git/20160810150139.lpxyrqkr53s5f4sx@sigill.intra.peff.net/
>
> ... and I got the impression you agreed with Peff:
> http://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqvaz84g9y.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/

The former does not exactly show how ugly it was, but I do not have to see it. It is talking about eliminating the need for memcpy() and duplicated header generation code, which the suggestion you are responding to didn't even attempt. If Peff said he tried an even more aggressive refactoring and it ended up too ugly to live, I believe him and agree with his assessment.

> I will try to refactor it according to your suggestion above. 
> Would "packet_write_fmt_1()" be an acceptable name or should 
> I come up with something more expressive?

The latter is preferrable, but we do not mind too strongly about the name of file-scope static helper that will never be called directly by anybody other than the two more public entry points the helper was designed to serve.