threads / patch / 33141

v2git.c: Remove unnecessary new line

Subject: [PATCH v2] git.c: Remove unnecessary new line

## tl;dr

3 messages between Mar 9, 2013 and Mar 10, 2013. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Michael Fallows· Mar 9, 2013, 22:16 UTC · lore

New line on checkout-index is inconsistent with the rest of the commands

Signed-off-by: Michael Fallows <michael@fallo.ws>
---
 git.c |    3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Show changes to git.c +1 −2

diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
index b10c18b..b4d7bbb 100644
--- a/git.c
+++ b/git.c
@@ -316,8 +316,7 @@ static void handle_internal_command(int argc, const char **argv)
 		{ "check-ignore", cmd_check_ignore, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
 		{ "check-ref-format", cmd_check_ref_format },
 		{ "checkout", cmd_checkout, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
-		{ "checkout-index", cmd_checkout_index,
-			RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE},
+		{ "checkout-index", cmd_checkout_index, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
 		{ "cherry", cmd_cherry, RUN_SETUP },
 		{ "cherry-pick", cmd_cherry_pick, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
 		{ "clean", cmd_clean, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },

-- 
1.7.9.5

Jonathan Nieder· Mar 10, 2013, 00:00 UTC · re: Michael Fallows · lore

Re: [PATCH v2] git.c: Remove unnecessary new line

Hi,

Michael Fallows wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> --- a/git.c
> +++ b/git.c
> @@ -316,8 +316,7 @@ static void handle_internal_command(int argc, const char **argv)
>  		{ "check-ignore", cmd_check_ignore, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
>  		{ "check-ref-format", cmd_check_ref_format },
>  		{ "checkout", cmd_checkout, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
> -		{ "checkout-index", cmd_checkout_index,
> -			RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE},
> +		{ "checkout-index", cmd_checkout_index, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },

This wrapped line was introduced a while ago (4465f410, checkout-index needs a working tree, 2007-08-04). It was the first line to wrap, but it was also the longest line at the time.

Now the longest line is

		{ "merge-recursive-theirs", cmd_merge_recursive, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },

(94 columns), so you are right that consistency would suggest dropping the line wrapping for checkout-index.

But I find it hard to convince myself that alone is worth the churn. In what context did you notice this? Is the intent to help scripts to parse the commands[] list, or to manipulate it while preserving formatting to avoid distractions? Did you notice the broken line while reading through and get distracted, or did some syntax highlighting tool notice the oddity, or something else?

Hope that helps, Jonathan

Michael Fallows· Mar 10, 2013, 00:10 UTC · re: Jonathan Nieder · lore

Re: [PATCH v2] git.c: Remove unnecessary new line

On 10/03/13 00:00, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 35 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> Michael Fallows wrote:
>
>> --- a/git.c
>> +++ b/git.c
>> @@ -316,8 +316,7 @@ static void handle_internal_command(int argc, const char **argv)
>>   		{ "check-ignore", cmd_check_ignore, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
>>   		{ "check-ref-format", cmd_check_ref_format },
>>   		{ "checkout", cmd_checkout, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
>> -		{ "checkout-index", cmd_checkout_index,
>> -			RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE},
>> +		{ "checkout-index", cmd_checkout_index, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
>
> This wrapped line was introduced a while ago (4465f410, checkout-index
> needs a working tree, 2007-08-04).  It was the first line to wrap, but
> it was also the longest line at the time.
>
> Now the longest line is
>
> 		{ "merge-recursive-theirs", cmd_merge_recursive, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
>
> (94 columns), so you are right that consistency would suggest dropping
> the line wrapping for checkout-index.
>
> But I find it hard to convince myself that alone is worth the churn.
> In what context did you notice this?  Is the intent to help scripts to
> parse the commands[] list, or to manipulate it while preserving
> formatting to avoid distractions?  Did you notice the broken line
> while reading through and get distracted, or did some syntax
> highlighting tool notice the oddity, or something else?
>
> Hope that helps,
> Jonathan
>

I do agree with you it does seem like a silly small change in the context of the project! I noticed it when reading through the source code (I felt working with git is nice but why not see what makes it tick). I will admit also, have never contributed to git and my C is nowhere near the standard worthy of any real contribution so this was also a step for me to see exactly how the world of patch contribution works too :D.

Thanks, Michael