Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static void wt_porcelain_v2_print(struct wt_status *s);
> +
There is no point in this forward declaration, if you just place the
implementation of these functions here, no?
> +/*
> + * Print porcelain v2 info for tracked entries with changes.
> + */
> +static void wt_porcelain_v2_print_changed_entry(
> + struct string_list_item *it,
> + struct wt_status *s)
> +{
> +...
> + fprintf(s->fp, "%c %s %s %06o %06o %06o %s %s R%d %s",
It is misleading to always say R in the output when there is no
rename, isn't it?
> + * Note that this is a last-one-wins for each the individual
> + * stage [123] columns in the event of multiple cache rows
> + * for a stage.
Just FYI, the usual lingo we use for that is "multiple cache entries
for the same stage", I would think.
> + */
> + memset(stages, 0, sizeof(stages));
> + sum = 0;
> + pos = cache_name_pos(it->string, strlen(it->string));
> + assert(pos < 0);
> + pos = -pos-1;
> + while (pos < active_nr) {
> + ce = active_cache[pos++];
> + stage = ce_stage(ce);
> + if (strcmp(ce->name, it->string) || !stage)
> + break;
> + stages[stage - 1].mode = ce->ce_mode;
> + hashcpy(stages[stage - 1].oid.hash, ce->sha1);
> + sum++;
> + }
> + if (!sum)
> + die("BUG: unmerged entry without any stages");
Hmm, we seem to already have d->stagemask; if you call that variable
"sum" anyway, perhaps its computation can be more like
sum |= 1 << (stage - 1);
so that you can compare it with d->stagemask for this sanity check?
--
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