> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Welcome to the Git community!
Thank you!
> Please use a more imperative style. (e.g. s/Uses/Use/ ...
> s/and simplfying/which simplifies/)
Thank you. Will do in a second version of this patch.
> Thanks for this link. It gives good context for reviewing the change,
> but it will not be good context to record as a commit message.
> (When someone looks at a commit message later on, they are usually trying
> to figure out what the author was thinking; if there were any special cases to
> be thought about. Was performance on the authors mind? etc)
> So I propose to put the link into the more informal section if a
> reroll is needed.
Perfect. I will remove it from the message.
> Instead of constructing the path again here based on relative path
> and the path parameter, I wonder if we could use
>
> if (unlink(diter->path))
> ..
>
> here? Then we would not need the strbuf at all?
Yes, we can! Thank you for the pointer. Will be in the next version of the
patch.
> Also we'd need to handle (empty) directories differently for removal?
>From what I've tested, we do not need to do it.
> Do we need to check the return code of dir_iterator_advance
> for ITER_ERROR as well?
I believe not – it only tries to perform an operation if we have ITER_OK. Since
ITER_ERROR would end up in a no-op anyway I don't see how a check for it
would be useful.
>
>
> > }
> > - closedir(dir);
> > +
> > if (rmdir(path->buf))
> > die_errno("cannot rmdir '%s'", path->buf);
>
> This would remove the "top level" directory as given by path.
> When reading the dir-iterator code, I am not sure if this is
> also part of the yield in dir_iterator_advance.
I've tested it, and it does not yield in there.
Thank you for the advice, and as stated, will submit a v2 of the patch
in short notice.
Thank you,
Daniel.