From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] patch-id: make get_one_patchid() more extensible
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:02:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZqeE2IaIhiWmpVM4@tanuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240621231826.3280338-4-gitster@pobox.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2351 bytes --]
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 04:18:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> We pass two independent Boolean flags (i.e. do we want the stable
> variant of patch-id? do we want to hash the stuff verbatim?) into
> the function as two separate parameters. Before adding the third
> one and make the interface even wider, let's consolidate them into
> a single flag word.
>
> No changes in behaviour. Just a trivial interface change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
> builtin/patch-id.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/patch-id.c b/builtin/patch-id.c
> index 0f262e7a03..128e0997d8 100644
> --- a/builtin/patch-id.c
> +++ b/builtin/patch-id.c
> @@ -58,9 +58,14 @@ static int scan_hunk_header(const char *p, int *p_before, int *p_after)
> return 1;
> }
>
> +#define GOPID_STABLE 01
> +#define GOPID_VERBATIM 02
> +
This certainly is a worthwhile change. I have to wonder about code style
though:
- Using 01 and 02 as constants feels somewhat weird to me. Don't we
typically use `(1 << 0)` and `(1 << 1)` for such binary flags?
- What is our preferred style nowadays? Do we prefer defines over
enums? I rather had the feeling that enums are the go-to style for
things like this nowadays.
It would also be nice to have documentation for the flags.
In any case, all of these are really just smallish nits and I think that
this is a strict improvement regardless of whether we massage the style
or not.
> @@ -237,7 +243,11 @@ int cmd_patch_id(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, builtin_patch_id_options,
> patch_id_usage, 0);
>
> - generate_id_list(opts ? opts > 1 : config.stable,
> - opts ? opts == 3 : config.verbatim);
> + if (opts ? opts > 1 : config.stable)
> + flags |= GOPID_STABLE;
> + if (opts ? opts == 3 : config.verbatim)
> + flags |= GOPID_VERBATIM;
I was wondering whether we could use `OPT_BIT()` here to set those as
flags directly. I guess that would require a bit more refactoring, but
if we also converted `struct patch_id_opts` to have a `flags` field then
this might overall be easier to read than the weird massaging of opts
that we did before and after your change.
Patrick
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-29 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-21 23:18 [PATCH 0/5] Tighten patch header parsing in patch-id Junio C Hamano
2024-06-21 23:18 ` [PATCH 1/5] t4204: patch-id supports various input format Junio C Hamano
2024-06-21 23:18 ` [PATCH 2/5] patch-id: call flush_current_id() only when needed Junio C Hamano
2024-06-21 23:18 ` [PATCH 3/5] patch-id: make get_one_patchid() more extensible Junio C Hamano
2024-07-29 12:02 ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]
2024-07-29 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-06-21 23:18 ` [PATCH 4/5] patch-id: rewrite code that detects the beginning of a patch Junio C Hamano
2024-07-29 12:03 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-06-21 23:18 ` [PATCH 5/5] patch-id: tighten code to detect the patch header Junio C Hamano
2024-07-29 12:07 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-07-29 20:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 4:55 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-07-30 5:12 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-07-30 1:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Tighten patch header parsing in patch-id Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 1:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] t4204: patch-id supports various input format Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 1:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] patch-id: call flush_current_id() only when needed Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 1:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] patch-id: make get_one_patchid() more extensible Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 1:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] patch-id: rewrite code that detects the beginning of a patch Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 1:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] patch-id: tighten code to detect the patch header Junio C Hamano
2024-07-30 5:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Tighten patch header parsing in patch-id Patrick Steinhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZqeE2IaIhiWmpVM4@tanuki \
--to=ps@pks.im \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).