On 3/16/2021 12:17 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > A re-send of a rebased v3, which I sent at: > http://lore.kernel.org/git/20210306110439.27694-1-avarab@xxxxxxxxx as > seen in the range-diff there are no changes since v3. I'm just sending > this as a post-release bump of this, per > https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy2etczqi.fsf@gitster.g/ > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (22): > fsck.h: update FSCK_OPTIONS_* for object_name > fsck.h: use designed initializers for FSCK_OPTIONS_{DEFAULT,STRICT} > fsck.h: reduce duplication between FSCK_OPTIONS_{DEFAULT,STRICT} > fsck.h: add a FSCK_OPTIONS_COMMON_ERROR_FUNC macro > fsck.h: indent arguments to of fsck_set_msg_type > fsck.h: use "enum object_type" instead of "int" > fsck.c: rename variables in fsck_set_msg_type() for less confusion > fsck.c: move definition of msg_id into append_msg_id() > fsck.c: rename remaining fsck_msg_id "id" to "msg_id" > fsck.c: refactor fsck_msg_type() to limit scope of "int msg_type" > fsck.h: move FSCK_{FATAL,INFO,ERROR,WARN,IGNORE} into an enum > fsck.h: re-order and re-assign "enum fsck_msg_type" > fsck.c: call parse_msg_type() early in fsck_set_msg_type() > fsck.c: undefine temporary STR macro after use > fsck.c: give "FOREACH_MSG_ID" a more specific name > fsck.[ch]: move FOREACH_FSCK_MSG_ID & fsck_msg_id from *.c to *.h > fsck.c: pass along the fsck_msg_id in the fsck_error callback > fsck.c: add an fsck_set_msg_type() API that takes enums > fsck.c: move gitmodules_{found,done} into fsck_options > fetch-pack: don't needlessly copy fsck_options > fetch-pack: use file-scope static struct for fsck_options > fetch-pack: use new fsck API to printing dangling submodules This series is carefully organized and motivated. It was quite easy to read. My complaints were minor. One was that patches 1-4 seemed to be unnecessarily granular. I'm not sure that having four patches like that will be more helpful for inspecting the history in the future. But, I don't care enough to say this should be re-rolled. Finally, the last issue is that fsck-cb.c is loosely justified with only one method inside. If you have plans in the near future to add similar methods there, then I think that is fine. Otherwise, it would be simpler to avoid the extra file and code move. Thanks, -Stolee
