Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +struct rewrite {
>> + const char *base;
>> + size_t baselen;
>> + struct counted_string *instead_of;
>> + int instead_of_nr;
>> + int instead_of_alloc;
>> +};
>> +struct rewrites {
>
> Missing a blank line between two type decls.
Thanks!
>
>> + struct rewrite **rewrite;
>> + int rewrite_alloc;
>> + int rewrite_nr;
>> +};
>
> It is a bit sad that we still have to keep "struct rewrites"; if we
> see how .remotes and .branches are handled, we probably should have
> left the <array, alloc, nr> 3-tuple for "struct rewrite" without an
> extra layer.
I considered doing this, but I found it non-trivial because some
functions use "struct rewrites" without consideration for whether it is
remote_state->rewrites or remote_state->rewrites_push i.e. the "struct
rewrites" abstraction is doing its job.
> ...such a restructuring would not belong here. OK.
By "here", I assume you mean "the restructuring doesn't belong in
this topic" vs "the restructuring belongs in this topic but not this
patch".
>> +struct remote_state {
>> + int config_loaded;
>> +
>> + struct remote **remotes;
>> + int remotes_alloc;
>> + int remotes_nr;
>> + struct hashmap remotes_hash;
>> +
>> + struct branch **branches;
>> + int branches_alloc;
>> + int branches_nr;
>> +
>> + struct branch *current_branch;
>> + const char *pushremote_name;
>> +
>> + struct rewrites rewrites;
>> + struct rewrites rewrites_push;
>> +};
>> +void remote_state_clear(struct remote_state *remote_state);
>
> Missing a blank line after "struct" decl.
Thanks!
