patchobject: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function

> I noticed that your 'jk/prune-mtime' branch also removes the only
> call to the add_object_array_with_mode() function outside of the
> object.c file; specifically commit 75ac69fa ("traverse_commit_list:
> support pending blobs/trees with paths", 15-10-2014).
> 
> This patch (which was generated using the '--histogram' option to
> format-patch), moves the function to before the definition of the
> add_object_array() function (to avoid a forward declaration), and
> makes it static.
> 
> If you need to re-roll this branch, could you please squash this
> patch into the above commit. (again, assuming you have no plans
> to add new external callers.)

> [If new external callers are very likely in the future (i.e. this
> function is an essential part of the object-array API), then it may
> well not be worth doing this. (with perhaps a note in the commit
> message? - dunno). Similar comments apply to the previous 'add_object'
> patch as well!]

> I actually wondered while writing this series whether anyone actually
> _uses_ the mode in object_array (the new code I added sets it to the
> appropriate value to be on the safe side, but traverse_commit_list does
> not actually care about it).
> 
> Digging in the history, it looks like it is used for blob-to-blob diffs
> (see 01618a3, "use mode of the tree in git-diff, if <tree>:<file> syntax
> is used", 2007-04-22). And that still seems to be the case today. It's a
> shame we have to keep such complication around for one single case
> (especially because getting it wrong in other cases is likely to go
> unnoticed for years), but I think it would probably require major
> surgery to extract it.
> 
> I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:

> 
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
> 
> This is a thin compatibility wrapper around
> add_pending_object_with_path. But the only caller is
> add_object_array, which is itself just a thin compatibility
> wrapper. There are no external callers, so we can just
> remove this middle wrapper.
> 
> Noticed-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> I also wondered if add_pending_object_with_mode could get the same
> treatment. But we _do_ use it in setup_revisions and friends when we
> parse something like "HEAD:foo". It would be trivial here to call
> add_pending_object_with_path instead, and actually feed "foo". That
> would mean that "git rev-list --objects HEAD:foo" reported the pathname
> "foo" alongside the object. Or if "foo" is a tree, all of its sub-parts
> would be "foo/whatever" instead of just "whatever". That seems somewhat
> sensible to me, but I would be unsurprised if it broke some weird corner
> case that is expecting paths to be relative to the given tree.
> 
>  object.c | 7 +------
>  object.h | 1 -
>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/object.c b/object.c
> index df86bdd..23d6c96 100644
> --- a/object.c
> +++ b/object.c
> @@ -341,12 +341,7 @@ void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name,
>  
>  void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array)
>  {
> -	add_object_array_with_mode(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID);
> -}
> -
> -void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode)
> -{
> -	add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, mode, NULL);
> +	add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID, NULL);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/object.h b/object.h
> index e5178a5..6416247 100644
> --- a/object.h
> +++ b/object.h
> @@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ int object_list_contains(struct object_list *list, struct object *obj);
>  
>  /* Object array handling .. */
>  void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array);
> -void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode);
>  void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode, const char *path);
>  
>  typedef int (*object_array_each_func_t)(struct object_array_entry *, void *);
> 

> I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
> ...

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
> > ...
> 
> Thanks.  I think I picked up all incrementals in this thread, but
> please holler if I missed anything.