Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote on Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:56:56 +0100
> I don't think all of these need to be squashed or fixed up into the
> proposed series, but are just various small issues/questions I came
> with while reviewing it. Brief notes
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (7):
> ...
I looked these commits in "RFC/REVIEW" and I think each one is a good
improvement. So next, to make the squashes or keep it alone I think
maybe it's like:
(1) ls-tree tests: add tests for --name-status
They are new test codes that better than old ones.
Action: Keep it individually.
(2) ls-tree tests: exhaustively test fast & slow path for --format
They are better test codes for the correctness formatting mechanism.
Action: Squash into commit 'ls-tree: introduce "--format" option'
(3) ls-tree: remove dead labels
They remove the dead labels, and you mentioned it should be squash into
the commit which brought them in.
Action: Squash into commit 'ls-tree: slightly refactor `show_tree()`'
(4) ls-tree: remove unused "MODE_UNSPECIFIED"
As the subject describes, remove unused "MODE_UNSPECIFIED" and make
"mutx_option" to a better name "mutx_option". It's the prepared commit
for 'ls-tree: remove FIELD_*, just use MODE_*''
Action: Squash into commit 'ls-tree: slightly refactor `show_tree()`'
(5) ls-tree: detect and error on --name-only --name-status
Optimized the incompatible detecting tests codes in "t/t3103-ls-tree-misc.sh"
and add a new 'MODE_NAME_STATUS'.
Action: Keep it individually.
(6) ls-tree: remove FIELD_*, just use MODE_*
Using MODE directlly and make a format-mode mappings for fast-path detection.
Action: Keep it individually.
(7) ls-tree: split up "fast path" callbacks
Expand "ls_tree_cmdmode_format" structure for each formats with the specific
show function and split up the current show functions name.
Action: Keep it individually.
This is the way I try to continue this work, please let me know if I understand you wrong.
I look forward to your reply and I will decide the next step based on the reply. If we have
a consistent understanding of the next actions, I will try to make a pull request to your
Git fork first. If there is no problem, I will continue to send patches to the mailing list.
Thanks.
