Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] read-tree: add --no-sparse to turn off sparse hook

[Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>]

2009/8/10 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
>> index f407bf5..d087112 100644
>> --- a/unpack-trees.c
>> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
>> @@ -530,8 +530,10 @@ int unpack_trees(unsigned len, struct tree_desc *t, struct unpack_trees_options
>>       if (o->trivial_merges_only && o->nontrivial_merge)
>>               return unpack_failed(o, "Merge requires file-level merging");
>>
>> -     if (run_sparse_hook(o))
>> -             return unpack_failed(o, NULL);
>> +     if (!o->no_sparse_hook) {
>> +             if (run_sparse_hook(o))
>> +                     return unpack_failed(o, NULL);
>> +     }
>>
>
> IMHO this would read nicelier as
>
>        if (!o->no_sparse_hook && run_sparse_hook(o))
>                return unpack_failed(o, NULL);

Right.

>> diff --git a/unpack-trees.h b/unpack-trees.h
>> index ad21823..81eb2ef 100644
>> --- a/unpack-trees.h
>> +++ b/unpack-trees.h
>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct unpack_trees_options {
>>                    skip_unmerged,
>>                    initial_checkout,
>>                    diff_index_cached,
>> +                  no_sparse_hook,
>>                    gently;
>
> Hmm.  I understand that the assumption is that memset(&opts, 0,
> sizeof(opts)); should give you a sensible default, but I cannot avoid
> noticing that "no_sparse_hook = 0" is a double negation, something to be
> avoided...

skip_sparse_hook then? :-)
-- 
Duy