On 2/9/2021 11:56 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: >> Also, this is used here and below. Perhaps it's worth pulling out as a >> helper? I see similar code being duplicated in these existing spots: >> >> * diff-no-index.c:append_basename() >> * help.c:append_similar_ref() >> * packfile.c:pack_basename() >> * replace-object.c:register_replace_ref() >> * setup.c:read_gitfile_gently() >> * builtin/rebase.c:cmd_rebase() >> * builtin/stash.c:do_create_stash() >> * builtin/worktree.c:add_worktree() >> * contrib/credential/gnome-keyring/git-credential-gnome-keyring.c:usage() >> * contrib/credential/libsecret/git-credential-libsecret.c:usage() >> * trace2/tr2_dst.c:tr2_dst_try_auto_path() > Honestly asking: would anyone ever search for such a two-line helper > function? I wouldn't have even thought to look, since it seems so > simple. > > However, my real concern here is that this type of change would risk > introducing conflicts with unrelated series. This series is the > second in what will be a 9-series deep dependency chain of > optimizations[1], and the later series are going to be longer than > these first two were (the latter ones are 6-11 patches each). We've > already discussed previously whether we possibly want to hold the > first couple optimization series out of the upcoming git-2.31 release > in order to keep the optimizations all together, but that might > increase the risk of conflicts with unrelated patches if we try a > bigger tree refactor like this. (Junio never commented on that, > though.) It might be better to keep the series touching only > merge-ort.c & diffcore-rename.c, and then do cleanups like the one you > suggest here after the whole series. > > That said, it's not a difficult initial change, so I'm mostly > expressing this concern out of making things harder for Junio. It'd > be best to get his opinion -- Junio, your thoughts? > > [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Anewren+Optimization+batch I don't consider the step of "go put the helper in all these other places" necessary for the current series. However, the "get basename" code appears a total of three times in this series, so it would be good to at least extract it to a static inline method to reduce the duplication isolated to this change. Thanks, -Stolee
