# [PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with() 4 messages from 2014-03-01 to 2014-03-03. Participants: Tanay Abhra, Michael Haggerty, Junio C Hamano, Eric Sunshine. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/36012 ## Tanay Abhra, 2014-03-01 19:48 Subject: [PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with() Message-ID: <1393703299-7977-1-git-send-email-tanayabh@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1393703299-7977-1-git-send-email-tanayabh%40gmail.com ``` Signed-off-by: Tanay Abhra --- commit.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c index 6bf4fe0..c954ecb 100644 --- a/commit.c +++ b/commit.c @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ static void record_author_date(struct author_date_slab *author_date, buf; buf = line_end + 1) { line_end = strchrnul(buf, '\n'); - if (!starts_with(buf, "author ")) { + if (!skip_prefix(buf, "author ")) { if (!line_end[0] || line_end[1] == '\n') return; /* end of header */ continue; -- 1.7.9.5 Hello, This is my patch for the GSoC microproject #10: Rewrite commit.c:record_author_date() to use skip_prefix(). Are there other places in this file where skip_prefix() would be more readable than starts_with()? Since skip_prefix() and starts_with() implement the same functionality with different return values, they can be interchanged easily. Other usage of starts_with() in the same file can be found with $ grep -n starts_with commit.c 1116: else if (starts_with(line, gpg_sig_header) && 1196: if (starts_with(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1)) { I have a query,should I tackle a bug from the mailing lists or research about the proposal and present a rough draft? Cheers, Tanay Abhra. ``` ## Michael Haggerty, 2014-03-03 08:58 Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with() Message-ID: <53144450.3080006@alum.mit.edu> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/53144450.3080006%40alum.mit.edu In-Reply-To: <1393703299-7977-1-git-send-email-tanayabh@gmail.com> ``` The format of this email is wrong. The non-commit-message notes should come between the "---" line (<- note, there are three minus signs here) and the patch itself. On 03/01/2014 08:48 PM, Tanay Abhra wrote: > Signed-off-by: Tanay Abhra > --- > commit.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c > index 6bf4fe0..c954ecb 100644 > --- a/commit.c > +++ b/commit.c > @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ static void record_author_date(struct author_date_slab *author_date, > buf; > buf = line_end + 1) { > line_end = strchrnul(buf, '\n'); > - if (!starts_with(buf, "author ")) { > + if (!skip_prefix(buf, "author ")) { If this is the only change, there is not much point, is there? How does this help? Perhaps there is some way to take advantage of the difference between starts_with() and skip_prefix() to simplify the rest of the function? > if (!line_end[0] || line_end[1] == '\n') > return; /* end of header */ > continue; > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > Hello, > > This is my patch for the GSoC microproject #10: > > Rewrite commit.c:record_author_date() to use skip_prefix(). > Are there other places in this file where skip_prefix() would be more > readable than starts_with()? > > Since skip_prefix() and starts_with() implement the same functionality with different > return values, they can be interchanged easily. > > Other usage of starts_with() in the same file can be found with > > $ grep -n starts_with commit.c > > 1116: else if (starts_with(line, gpg_sig_header) && > 1196: if (starts_with(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1)) { The rhetorical question that was part of this microproject was meant to inspire you to actually *FIX* the other spots, at least if the change makes sense. > I have a query,should I tackle a bug from the mailing lists or research about the proposal > and present a rough draft? My suggestion is that you follow up on this microproject until it is perfect before worrying too much about the next step. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-03-03 18:40 Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with() Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqmwh7qg6v.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <53144450.3080006@alum.mit.edu> ``` Michael Haggerty writes: >> - if (!starts_with(buf, "author ")) { >> + if (!skip_prefix(buf, "author ")) { > > If this is the only change, there is not much point, is there? How does > this help? Perhaps there is some way to take advantage of the > difference between starts_with() and skip_prefix() to simplify the rest > of the function? I admit I lost track, but wasn't there a discussion to use starts_with/ends_with when appropriate (namely, the caller is absolutely not interested in what the remainder of the string is after skipping the prefix), moving away from skip_prefix()? Isn't this change going in the wrong direction? ``` ## Eric Sunshine, 2014-03-03 19:52 Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with() Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAPig%2BcQrnKRDo88qq%3D3Ujjjwv0rn4H%2BeovAeAnmODUDPr00m8g%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >>> - if (!starts_with(buf, "author ")) { >>> + if (!skip_prefix(buf, "author ")) { >> >> If this is the only change, there is not much point, is there? How does >> this help? Perhaps there is some way to take advantage of the >> difference between starts_with() and skip_prefix() to simplify the rest >> of the function? > > I admit I lost track, but wasn't there a discussion to use > starts_with/ends_with when appropriate (namely, the caller is > absolutely not interested in what the remainder of the string is > after skipping the prefix), moving away from skip_prefix()? Isn't > this change going in the wrong direction? Yes, it would be going in the wrong direction if this was all there was to it, but the particular GSoC microproject [1] which inspired this (incomplete) submission expects that the potential student will dig deeper and discover how skip_prefix() can be used to achieve greater simplification in record_author_date() and in other places in the same file. [1]: https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/SoC-2014-Microprojects.md ```