On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
> <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The use case is keep some worktree and discard the rest of the worktree
>> list.
>
> So, you're saying that rather than a client freeing the entire
> worktree list like this:
>
> free_worktrees(worktrees);
>
> it might instead want to keep some element ('n') and free all others
> plus the list itself, like this:
>
> struct worktree *keep = worktrees[n];
> struct worktree **p = worktrees;
> for (; *p; p++)
> if (*p != keep)
> clear_worktree(*p);
> free(worktrees);
>
> Is that correct?
>
> If so, then doesn't this require the client to have far too intimate
> knowledge of the internals of free_worktrees(). Or, was your idea that
> the client would simply leak the 'worktrees' array after freeing the
> unwanted elements?
I looked back in my trees to see why I needed it in the first place.
It turns out my explanation was a lie. I needed it for refactoring
builtin/worktree.c:add_worktree(), where I initialized struct worktree
separately, not from get_worktrees() [1]. Because it's not clear of
the exact use case for this commit, and because that commit I
mentioned may take even longer time to be here (it adds "git worktree
move --repository", a lot more complex operation than a "git worktree
move"), I'll take this commit out of the series for now.
[1] https://github.com/pclouds/git/commit/528d81ce5609b5fbbe1ba193389f7aeecc83d992
> In either case, a cleaner approach might be to provide a function for
> copying a worktree element. Perhaps:
>
> struct worktree *copy_worktree(const struct worktree *);
>
> or something?
--
Duy
--
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