Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> -static int commit_graft_pos(struct repository *r, const unsigned char *sha1)
> +int commit_graft_pos(struct repository *r, const unsigned char *sha1)
> {
> return sha1_pos(sha1, r->parsed_objects->grafts,
> r->parsed_objects->grafts_nr,
> diff --git a/commit.h b/commit.h
> index ab91d21131..eb42e8b6d2 100644
> --- a/commit.h
> +++ b/commit.h
> @@ -236,6 +236,7 @@ struct commit_graft {
> typedef int (*each_commit_graft_fn)(const struct commit_graft *, void *);
>
> struct commit_graft *read_graft_line(struct strbuf *line);
> +int commit_graft_pos(struct repository *r, const unsigned char *sha1);
In an earlier exchange, I saw this:
>> - could include a comment saying that it's an index into
>> r->parsed_objects->grafts
>
> This and the below are both good ideas to me. I prefer this one, since
> we'd have to duplicate yet another static function
> ('commit_graft_sha1_access()' directly above) that is called by this
> one.
>
>> - I'm usually loathe to suggest unnecessary duplication of code, but
>> it might make sense to duplicate the function into shallow.c. Or
>> even to inline it there (in the single call site, that ends up
>> being pretty readable).
>
> I am not at all offended by duplication of code where it makes sense to
> do so, but having to duplicate two functions seems like we'd be better
> off simply documenting the function in commit.h.
and I think I agree with that direction. Forgot to add those
comments?
