Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 2: 96c904d0b9a ! 2: f73aa601e95 date API: create a date.h, split from cache.h
> @@ Commit message
> use the "DATE_MODE()" macro we now define in date.h, let's have them
> include it.
>
> + We could simply include this new header in "cache.h", but as this
> + change shows these functions weren't common enough to warrant
> + including in it in the first place. By moving them out of cache.h
> + changes to this API will no longer cause a (mostly) full re-build of
> + the project when "make" is run.
> +
If this step were to include the new header in "cache.h" to reduce
the patch noise, and there were a follow-up step to update the *.c
files to include the new header while removing the inclusion of the
header from "cache.h", then the above would make a fine draft for
the log message that justifies that follow-up step.
But if we are doing these two things in a single step, the paragraph
would not make a very useful comment to help readers of "git log".
> 4: 3f70b1aa4c5 ! 4: 5c244960133 date API: add basic API docs
> @@ date.h: struct date_mode {
> struct date_mode *date_mode_from_type(enum date_mode_type type);
>
> +/**
> -+ * Show the date given an initialized "struct date_mode" (usually from
> -+ * the DATE_MODE() macro).
> ++ * Format <'time', 'timezone'> into static memory according to 'mode'
> ++ * and return it. The mode is an initialized "struct date_mode"
> ++ * (usually from the DATE_MODE() macro).
> + */
> const char *show_date(timestamp_t time, int timezone, const struct date_mode *mode);
OK.
> 5: 60dbadacb16 ! 5: b1ee9a30913 date API: add and use a date_mode_release()
> @@ Commit message
> release_revisions() in "revision.c", as they have to do with leaks via
> "struct rev_info".
>
> + There is also a leak in "builtin/blame.c" due to its call to
> + parse_date_format() to parse the "blame.date" configuration. However
> + as it declares a file-level "static struct date_mode blame_date_mode"
> + to track the data, LSAN will not report it as a leak.
Ah, it is not even a leak, then. Is blame the only thing that uses
parse_date_format() outside the revision walkers?
Thanks.
