Re: [PATCH 16/16] fsmonitor-settings: simplify initialization of settings data

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2022, 19:49 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpmmoqpp5.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <432f9ff9d92ff55216555864cb3571c94a2c6db9.1647033303.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

"Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
>
> fixup! fsmonitor: config settings are repository-specific

I cannot tell the validity of this change alone without the base commit in part2 to choose between setting s->mode directly or calling __set_disabled(r).

I've read all the 16 patches here, and I found that the majority of them (except for "it is hard to tell why we are changing in 2.5; it needs a better justification" ones like this) are "oops, the part2 patches had these obvious and trivial mistakes that we should have fixed before we merged them to 'next', or even sending them to the list in the first place" fixes.

Let's kick part2 out of 'next', and replace it with a corrected set of patches and have people review them, this time for real, before merging it back to 'next'. I just do not get the good feel that the series was adequately reviewed---if we have this many "oops" fixups needed after getting merged to 'next'.

Thanks.

Show 22 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
> ---
>  fsmonitor-settings.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsmonitor-settings.c b/fsmonitor-settings.c
> index 3b54e7a51f6..757d230d538 100644
> --- a/fsmonitor-settings.c
> +++ b/fsmonitor-settings.c
> @@ -22,11 +22,10 @@ static void lookup_fsmonitor_settings(struct repository *r)
>  		return;
>  
>  	CALLOC_ARRAY(s, 1);
> +	s->mode = FSMONITOR_MODE_DISABLED;
>  
>  	r->settings.fsmonitor = s;
>  
> -	fsm_settings__set_disabled(r);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Overload the existing "core.fsmonitor" config setting (which
>  	 * has historically been either unset or a hook pathname) to