On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:26 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:55:51PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > But I think in the current scheme that "free" is somewhat overloaded, > > > and if we end with a "clear" and a "free" that seems confusing to me. > > > > Hmm...there are quite a few calls to hashmap_free() and > > hashmap_free_entries() throughout the codebase. I'm wondering if I > > should make switching these over to your new naming suggestions a > > separate follow-on series from this one, so that if there are any > > conflicts with other series it doesn't need to hold these first 10 > > patches up. > > Yeah, it will definitely need a lot of mechanical fix-up. Those kinds of > conflicts aren't usually a big deal. Junio will have to resolve them, > but if the resolution is easy and mechanical, then it's not likely to > hold up either topic. > > > If I do that, I could also add a patch to convert several callers of > > hashmap_init() to use the new HASHMAP_INIT() macro, and another patch > > to convert shortlog to using my strset instead of its own. > > Yeah, both would be nice. I'm happy if it comes as part of the series, > or separately on top. After sending the email, I ended up deciding to convert the callers just to sanity check the HASHMAP_INIT macro and discovered that the code will BUG() if you don't also include .do_count_items = 1. So, I just decided to include that in the v3 of the series after all.
