On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Why did send-email add this From: header? Strange, it has the same
> content as your actual From: field.
>
Not sure why, everything else came out fine. Idk what happened here.
>> Remove unnecessary variables from ref_list and ref_item
>> which were used for width computation. Make other changes
>> accordingly. This patch is a precursor for porting branch.c
>> to use ref-filter APIs.
>
> You can explain better why this is needed. I guess something like "we're
> making struct ref_item similar to ref-filter's ref_array_item", but the
> reader shouldn't have to guess.
>
Will explain like you suggested.
> You should adujst the subject like BTW, I don't think you are "fixing"
> anything.
>
I guess refactor would be a better word here.
> On a side note: on the "tag" series, see how explaining better and
> splitting patches led not only to a better history, but also to better
> final code, and to finding a actual bugs (the %(color) thing and the
> absence of reset on the state variable) even after sereval rounds of
> review? I'm being picky and demanding, but don't see that as a complain
> from me, just hints on getting even better ;-).
>
Haha, I look forward to reviews, they show things I usually miss out on,
and help me get better. so keep them coming, I'll keep improving :)
Thanks
>> @@ -386,15 +386,8 @@ static int append_ref(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid, int flag
>> newitem->name = xstrdup(refname);
>> newitem->kind = kind;
>> newitem->commit = commit;
>> - newitem->width = utf8_strwidth(refname);
>> newitem->dest = resolve_symref(orig_refname, prefix);
>> newitem->ignore = 0;
>> - /* adjust for "remotes/" */
>> - if (newitem->kind == REF_REMOTE_BRANCH &&
>> - ref_list->kinds != REF_REMOTE_BRANCH)
>> - newitem->width += 8;
>> - if (newitem->width > ref_list->maxwidth)
>> - ref_list->maxwidth = newitem->width;
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> OK, in the old code, the width computation is done when inserting the
> ref into the array. In the new code, you build the array and then do the
> width computation. You can explain this better in the commit message I
> think (instead of "Make other changes accordingly" which doesn't bring
> much).
Okay I guess will do, just didn't want to explain the whole thing in the commit
message.
>
>> @@ -505,11 +498,12 @@ static void add_verbose_info(struct strbuf *out, struct ref_item *item,
>> }
>>
>> static void print_ref_item(struct ref_item *item, int maxwidth, int verbose,
>> - int abbrev, int current, char *prefix)
>> + int abbrev, int current, const char *remote_prefix)
>> {
>> char c;
>> int color;
>> struct strbuf out = STRBUF_INIT, name = STRBUF_INIT;
>> + const char *prefix = "";
>>
>> if (item->ignore)
>> return;
>> @@ -520,6 +514,7 @@ static void print_ref_item(struct ref_item *item, int maxwidth, int verbose,
>> break;
>> case REF_REMOTE_BRANCH:
>> color = BRANCH_COLOR_REMOTE;
>> + prefix = remote_prefix;
>> break;
>
> Why do you need these two hunks? I did not investigate in details, but
> it seems you're calling print_ref_item either with prefix="" or with
> prefix=remote_prefix so it would seem that keeping "prefix" as argument
> would work. I guess I missed something.
This is needed as whenever we do "git branch", show_detached() calls
print_ref_item()
with remote_prefix="". But print_ref_list() calls print_ref_item()
with remote_prefix="remotes"
(only when `git branch -a` is called remote_prefix=""). But only
remote branches should be
given the remotes prefix.
>
>> -static int calc_maxwidth(struct ref_list *refs)
>> +static int calc_maxwidth(struct ref_list *refs, int remote_bonus)
>> {
>> - int i, w = 0;
>> + int i, max = 0;
>> for (i = 0; i < refs->index; i++) {
>> + struct ref_item *it = &refs->list[i];
>> + int w = utf8_strwidth(it->name);
>> +
>> if (refs->list[i].ignore)
>> continue;
>> - if (refs->list[i].width > w)
>> - w = refs->list[i].width;
>> + if (it->kind == REF_REMOTE_BRANCH)
>> + w += remote_bonus;
>> + if (w > max)
>> + max = w;
>> }
>> - return w;
>> + return max;
>> }
>
> The old code was using 'w' for the max and no variable for the value at
> the current iteration. You're using 'max' for the max and 'w' at the
> current iteration. Using the same name 'w' for different things in the
> pre- and post-image of the patch distracts the reader.
>
> It may make sense to s/w/max/ in a separate preparatory patch. Or maybe
> it's overkill.
>
Since the change was minimal and easily understandable I think it's ok.
But if you still feel otherwise, I'll be happy to introduce a preparatory patch.
>> @@ -600,21 +600,18 @@ static char *get_head_description(void)
>> return strbuf_detach(&desc, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> -static void show_detached(struct ref_list *ref_list)
>> +static void show_detached(struct ref_list *ref_list, int maxwidth)
>> {
>> struct commit *head_commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(head_sha1, 1);
>>
>> if (head_commit && is_descendant_of(head_commit, ref_list->with_commit)) {
>> struct ref_item item;
>> item.name = get_head_description();
>> - item.width = utf8_strwidth(item.name);
>> item.kind = REF_LOCAL_BRANCH;
>> item.dest = NULL;
>> item.commit = head_commit;
>> item.ignore = 0;
>> - if (item.width > ref_list->maxwidth)
>> - ref_list->maxwidth = item.width;
>> - print_ref_item(&item, ref_list->maxwidth, ref_list->verbose, ref_list->abbrev, 1, "");
>> + print_ref_item(&item, maxwidth, ref_list->verbose, ref_list->abbrev, 1, "");
>> free(item.name);
>> }
>> }
> ...
>> + int maxwidth = 0;
> ...
>> + if (verbose)
>> + maxwidth = calc_maxwidth(&ref_list, strlen(remote_prefix));
>>
>> qsort(ref_list.list, ref_list.index, sizeof(struct ref_item), ref_cmp);
>>
>> detached = (detached && (kinds & REF_LOCAL_BRANCH));
>> if (detached && match_patterns(pattern, "HEAD"))
>> - show_detached(&ref_list);
>> + show_detached(&ref_list, maxwidth);
>
> This hunks could ideally go in a preparatory patch that would just move
> the place where maxwidth is computed. This preparatory patch would just
> say
>
> maxwidth = ref_list->maxwidth;
>
> and then you would do the actual change to
>
> if (verbose)
> maxwidth = calc_maxwidth(...)
>
> without the distracting changes in the function's argument list.
>
> I won't insist on that, again it may be overkill. But reading the patch,
> I found it both rather trivial and hard to read, so there's room for
> improvement.
>
I find it too small to make a preparatory patch again, but if you really feel
so, like I said, I'll change :)
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html