On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam
<kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2017 06:34 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam
>> <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
>>> @@ -462,6 +462,8 @@ static void copy_or_rename_branch(const char
>>> *oldname, const char *newname, int
>>> {
>>> struct strbuf oldref = STRBUF_INIT, newref = STRBUF_INIT, logmsg
>>> = STRBUF_INIT;
>>> struct strbuf oldsection = STRBUF_INIT, newsection =
>>> STRBUF_INIT;
>>> + const char *prefix_free_oldref = NULL;
>>> + const char *prefix_free_newref = NULL;
>>
>> A bit of a mouthful.
>> Perhaps name these 'oldname' and 'newname' or something?
>
> How about the following ?
>
> 1) "interpreted_oldname" and "interpreted_newname" or
>
> 2) "stripped_oldref" and "stripped_newref"
>
> I couldn't come up with better names for now.
Sorry, I didn't look closely enough at the context to see that
'oldname' and 'newname' were already used as function arguments.
Perhaps call them 'oldref_bare' and 'newref_bare' or something. It not
that important (though, shorter may be preferable). Aside from the
names being rather long, what I didn't mention originally (because I
had edited it out of my earlier response) was that having "free" in
the names made me think that the values needed to be passed to free()
by the end of the function. It's probably not worth a re-roll,
though...
