[PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

[PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

[Diwas Joshi]

- To show only error text instead of full usage message
- Adds exits to callback function in parse-options-cb.c instead of returning -1 which results in display of usage message.
---
 parse-options-cb.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/parse-options-cb.c b/parse-options-cb.c
index 239898d..b7321d1 100644
--- a/parse-options-cb.c
+++ b/parse-options-cb.c
@@ -85,8 +85,10 @@ int parse_opt_commits(const struct option *opt, const char *arg, int unset)
 
 	if (!arg)
 		return -1;
-	if (get_sha1(arg, sha1))
-		return error("malformed object name %s", arg);
+	if (get_sha1(arg, sha1)) {
+		error("malformed object name %s", arg);
+		exit(129);
+	}
 	commit = lookup_commit_reference(sha1);
 	if (!commit)
 		return error("no such commit %s", arg);
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

[Pranit Bauva]

This is my first review. It can contain some mistakes.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Diwas Joshi <dj.dij123@gmail.com> wrote:
> Subject : [PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

Mention about GSoC in the notes section (the one followed by the 3
dashes ie. "---") rather than in the subject.

> - To show only error text instead of full usage message
> - Adds exits to callback function in parse-options-cb.c instead of returning -1 which results in display of usage message.

A general convention followed by git users it to write the commit
message as "What he did to the code?" rather than "What problem was
there in the code?" And of course after writing what you did to the
code, you can definitely mention what problem in the code made you do
this change.

>  parse-options-cb.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/parse-options-cb.c b/parse-options-cb.c
> index 239898d..b7321d1 100644
> --- a/parse-options-cb.c
> +++ b/parse-options-cb.c
> @@ -85,8 +85,10 @@ int parse_opt_commits(const struct option *opt, const char *arg, int unset)
>
>         if (!arg)
>                 return -1;
> -       if (get_sha1(arg, sha1))
> -               return error("malformed object name %s", arg);
> +       if (get_sha1(arg, sha1)) {
> +               error("malformed object name %s", arg);
> +               exit(129);
> +       }
>         commit = lookup_commit_reference(sha1);
>         if (!commit)
>                 return error("no such commit %s", arg);

Maybe you could describe a little more on why this change is required?
Why would the user want to know "How to use the command?" when the
actual problem is that SHA-1 checksum has been compromised? And I
don't see any consumers of this method which *directly* interact with
the UI.

It seems that PATCH 1/3 and PATCH 2/3 are missing.

Re: [PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

[Junio C Hamano]

Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:

> A general convention followed by git users it to write the commit
> message as "What he did to the code?" rather than "What problem was
> there in the code?"

It is OK for other projects to adopt a different convention, but The
project convention here is different.

We tend to write our log message like this in this order:

 - Explain relevant behaviour and code structure in the current code
   to refresh memory of readers to help them understand the next two
   items better.  This paragraph is optional and you see it only in
   difficult patches.

 - Desribe the problem.  What the end user would do and what she
   sees in response to it, why that is not a good outcome, and what
   would be a better outcome.  For a patch to only improve code,
   replace "the end user" with "other codepaths that interact with
   the code being changed".

 - Explain the approach to implement a better outcome.  This
   paragraph is optional and you see it only in patches that
   implement tricky solutions.

 - Describe the solution, as if you are giving orders to the
   maintainers to change the code this way and that way.

Re: [PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

[Pranit Bauva]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A general convention followed by git users it to write the commit
>> message as "What he did to the code?" rather than "What problem was
>> there in the code?"
>
> It is OK for other projects to adopt a different convention, but The
> project convention here is different.
>
> We tend to write our log message like this in this order:
>
>  - Explain relevant behaviour and code structure in the current code
>    to refresh memory of readers to help them understand the next two
>    items better.  This paragraph is optional and you see it only in
>    difficult patches.
>
>  - Desribe the problem.  What the end user would do and what she
>    sees in response to it, why that is not a good outcome, and what
>    would be a better outcome.  For a patch to only improve code,
>    replace "the end user" with "other codepaths that interact with
>    the code being changed".
>
>  - Explain the approach to implement a better outcome.  This
>    paragraph is optional and you see it only in patches that
>    implement tricky solutions.
>
>  - Describe the solution, as if you are giving orders to the
>    maintainers to change the code this way and that way.

Thanks for making it clearer to me! I tend to write bad commit
messages. Improving on it though.

Re: [PATCH/GSoC 3/3] Nousage message in error

[Pranit Bauva]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Diwas Joshi <dj.dij123@gmail.com> wrote:
> - To show only error text instead of full usage message
> - Adds exits to callback function in parse-options-cb.c instead of returning -1 which results in display of usage message.

I forgot to mention that this microproject is already picked up by
someone else. Try attempting another microproject from the list. The
thread for the discussion of this is :
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/289312/focus=289336