From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BC120229 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 22:39:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935495AbcJUWji (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:39:38 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59752 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935125AbcJUWjg (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:39:36 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4028D48603; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:39:30 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; s=sasl; bh=q6tV 95VJuMMHvlJZHxYJfCy2WgQ=; b=Ea5wMO4BYMic3rF8EMnjOo3zF8qic5nruzII /MplaHLtUG4O7IYTgSdcr6kF9cqS1kgvnuC3BD4V8i0deyvxohVRoAoY3L3QnVR3 kOqMlyyOmIZUd3EuPY/4t2L+9jLol+Tj83rOhZ5/mGxHrrcKq38kN0LbAOTrUMVu 03Jvh54= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:subject :date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; q=dns; s=sasl; b=nLz2J0 d9dWVSMHG4xXAAHcose4915m7D0Dz4OQR/86laeclG//FjX1FhkZIZs3Z+nHfFWH V/6Z90RpygzcZB79huRefjPmYoyIgsZ84zDIhE7dukIhFraK80SB0J8S/IB0FZ/B 1CrHFFoKn0c3/WMs+rZDWOQcHpX9/LnH3kmfc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3766A48602; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB0E648601; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:39:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/3] fetch output is ugly in 'next' Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:39:24 -0700 Message-Id: <20161021223927.26364-1-gitster@pobox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.10.1-723-g2384e83bc3 In-Reply-To: References: X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3A8C2DB6-97DF-11E6-9A48-3AB77A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org It turns out that there are three codepaths, all of which have a set of refs that they want to show them using TRANSPORT_SUMMARY_WIDTH constant. The two preparatory steps turn the constant used at the leaf level into a parameter that is passed down through these callchains, and the last step introduces a helper function that can be used to compute the appropriate width to be fed to these callchains. Junio C Hamano (3): transport: pass summary_width down the callchain fetch: pass summary_width down the callchain transport: allow summary-width to be computed dynamically builtin/fetch.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++-------------- transport.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- transport.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) -- 2.10.1-723-g2384e83bc3