From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:33:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] Introduce fsck options
Message-ID: <xmqqk31zjz8o.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <56e9445d6e8a746356146bc565512f53bf8a0c8d.1418055173.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

THis is not limited to this step, but

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] Introduce fsck options

please make it easier to cluster and spot the series in the eventual
shortlog by giving a common prefix to the patches, e.g.

	fsck: introduce fsck_options struct

> +static struct fsck_options fsck_walk_options = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;
> +static struct fsck_options fsck_obj_options = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;

Is it a good idea to allow walker to be strict but obj verifier to
be not (or vice versa)?  I am wondering why this is not a single
struct with two callback function pointers.

> +struct fsck_options {
> +	fsck_walk_func walk;
> +	fsck_error error_func;
> +	int strict:1;

A signed 1-bit-wide bitfield can hold its sign-bit and nothing else,
no?

    unsigned strict:1;