On Tue, Aug 24 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 7:02 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> +--progress-title::
>> + For internal use only.
>> ++
>> +Set the title of the "Receiving objects" progress bar (it's "Indexing
>> +objects" under `--stdin`).
>
> May I suggest a minor edit:
>
> Set the title of the progress bar. The title is "Receiving objects"
> by default and "Indexing objects" when `--stdin` is specified.
Thanks.
>> @@ -1806,6 +1808,10 @@ int cmd_index_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> input_len = sizeof(*hdr);
>> } else if (!strcmp(arg, "-v")) {
>> verbose = 1;
>> + } else if (!strcmp(arg, "--progress-title")) {
>
> Unfortunate that we are not using the parse-opts API. Not your fault.
>
>> + if (progress_title || (i+1) >= argc)
>
> style nit:
>
> if (progress_title || i + 1 >= argc)
>
> Although, I notice a similar line elsewhere in the file, so this gets
> a pass.
>
> if (index_name || (i+1) >= argc)
Yeah, it's exactly copy/pasted from another thing doing the same sort of
parsing in this file. Will keep it the same for this new code, and just
note it.
I think any subsequent change to refactor it will be easier if it's all
consistent, v.s. some using i + 1, another putting it in parenthesis
etc.
>> + usage(index_pack_usage);
>> + progress_title = argv[++i];
>
> One downside to this organization is that `--progress-title=X` will
> not work here. There are other `--<option-name>=X` options in this
> builtin, and the index output name is specified with the short name
> `-o X`. We should probably err to match the `--<option-name>=X`
> pattern in this file for now. An eventual conversion to standard
> option parsing would be helpful here, but I don't think is worth
> blocking this series.
*nod*.
