On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:16:31AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> > index 59c9d15905..5044afc2f8 100644
> > --- a/submodule.c
> > +++ b/submodule.c
> > @@ -522,6 +522,13 @@ static int has_remote(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > +static int append_hash_to_argv(const unsigned char sha1[20], void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct argv_array *argv = (struct argv_array *) data;
> > + argv_array_push(argv, sha1_to_hex(sha1));
>
> Nit of the day:
> When using the struct child-process, we have the oldstyle argv NULL
> terminated array as
> well as the new style args argv_array. So in that context we'd prefer
> `args` as a name for
> argv_array as that helps to distinguish from the old array type.
> Here however `argv` seems to be a reasonable name, in fact whenever we
> do not deal with
> child processes, we seem to not like the `args` name:
>
> $ git grep argv_array |wc -l
> 577
> $ git grep argv_array |grep args |wc -l
> 293
>
> The rest looks good to me. :)
Thanks. So I do not completely get what you are suggesting: args or kept
it the way it is? Since in the end you are saying it is ok here ;) I
mainly chose this name because I am substituting the argv variable which
is already called 'argv' with this array. That might also be the reason
why in so many locations with struct child_processe's we have the 'argv'
name: Because they initially started with the old-style NULL terminated
array.
I am fine with it either way. Just tell me what you like :)
Cheers Heiko