From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] builtin/commit.c: convert trivial snprintf calls to xsnprintf Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:04:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20160603090448.GF28401@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160603074724.12173-1-gitter.spiros@gmail.com> <20160603084917.GA28401@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Elia Pinto X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 03 11:05:15 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b8l2H-0007Ba-8e for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:04:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932281AbcFCJEw (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:04:52 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:48328 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932097AbcFCJEv (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:04:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 1799 invoked by uid 102); 3 Jun 2016 09:04:51 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 05:04:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 19250 invoked by uid 107); 3 Jun 2016 09:04:59 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 05:04:59 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 03 Jun 2016 05:04:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160603084917.GA28401@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:49:18AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I haven't looked carefully at each call site in detail yet, but from the > previous rounds of sprintf handling, I'd guess each site falls into one > of two categories: So that being said, I did just look at several of them. And I think they _do_ fall into these categories, but I think the solutions don't necessarily. So what I would do is find solutions for each, and then go back and group them by situation and solution-type using "git rebase -i". It may be that you end up with 10 patches, or it may be that you see some patterns. But I think grouping is helpful for reviewers, because it communicates the patterns you found while doing the work. -Peff