Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> Considered the prefix patch number "0001-" would take 5 characters, increase >> the FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX to 80. > > As the code is written now, the length also includes the ".patch" > suffix, as well as an extra byte (maybe for a NUL? Once upon a time I > imagine we used static buffers, but these days it's all in a strbuf). > > A simple test with: > > git init > for i in $(seq 8); do printf 1234567890; done | > git commit --allow-empty -F - > git format-patch -1 > > shows us generating: > > 0001-1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012.patch > > So that's only 52 characters, from our constant of 64. Bumping to 80 > gives us 66, which is reasonable though probably still involves > occasional truncation. But maybe keeping the total length to 80 (79, > really, because of the extra byte) may be worth doing. > > Which is all a long-winded way of saying that your patch seems > reasonable to me. A devil's advocate thinks that we should shorten it (and rename it to format-patch-subject-prefix-length or something) instead. That way, "ls" output can show more than one files on a single line even on a 80-column terminal. The leading digits already guarantee the uniqueness anyway. I do not mind getting rid of the "FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX" constant and replacing it with a variable that defaults to 64 and can be tweaked by a command line option and/or a configuration variable. It does not feel it is worth the effort to replace one hardcoded constant with another hardcoded constant. > Looking at the code which uses the constant, I suspect it could also be > made simpler: > > - the PATH_MAX check in open_next_file() seems pointless. Once upon a > time it mattered for fitting into a PATH_MAX buffer, but these days > we use a dynamic buffer anyway. We are probably better off to just > feed the result to the filesystem and see if it complains (since > either way we are aborting; I'd feel differently if we adjusted our > truncation size) > > - the logic in fmt_output_subject() could probably be simpler if the > constant was "here's how long the subject should be", not "here's > how long the whole thing must be". > > But those are both orthogonal to your patch and can be done separately. Yes, these clean-ups seem worth doing.
