On 07/09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> > > diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
> >> > > index a9a066dcfb..252f835bae 100644
> >> > > --- a/refs/files-backend.c
> >> > > +++ b/refs/files-backend.c
> >> > > @@ -1587,7 +1587,7 @@ static int log_ref_write_fd(int fd, const struct object_id *old_oid,
> >> > > char *logrec;
> >> > >
> >> > > msglen = msg ? strlen(msg) : 0;
> >> > > - maxlen = strlen(committer) + msglen + 100;
> >> > > + maxlen = strlen(committer) + msglen + 200;
> >> > > logrec = xmalloc(maxlen);
> >> > > len = xsnprintf(logrec, maxlen, "%s %s %s\n",
> >> > > oid_to_hex(old_oid),
> >> >
> >> > nit: 100 is not enough anymore, but wasn't a very descriptive value. 200
> >> > may be enough now, but I'm not sure why.
> >>
> >> That line was touched in by Michael in 7bd9bcf372d (refs: split filesystem-based
> >> refs code into a new file, 2015-11-09) and before that by Ronnie in 2c6207abbd6
> >> (refs.c: add a function to append a reflog entry to a fd, 2014-12-12)
> >> and introduced
> >> by Junio in 8ac65937d03 (Make sure we do not write bogus reflog
> >> entries., 2007-01-26)
> >> and it appears to me that 2*40 + 5 ought to be sufficient, but no
> >> comments or commit
> >> messages are found as to why we rather choose 100.
> >
> > Whats the reason for not using a strbuf here so that we don't have to
> > play with magic numbers?
>
> Quite a legitimate question.
>
> I suspect that the reason is because the code (even though it now
> sits in a file that was relatively recently creted) predates either
> the introduction or wide adoption of strbuf.
>
> Back when 6de08ae6 ("Log ref updates to logs/refs/<ref>",
> 2006-05-17) was done, we already had strbuf.c, but it only had
> read_line() and nothing else back then, so it wouldn't have been
> possible to use a strbuf there.
Fair enough, having never working in the code back then I don't know
what life was like without strbuf.
--
Brandon Williams
