Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 11:40:27AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > @@ -862,11 +858,11 @@ static void write_refspec_config(const char *src_ref_prefix,
>> >
>> > static void dissociate_from_references(void)
>> > {
>> > - static const char* argv[] = { "repack", "-a", "-d", NULL };
>>
>> Good to see that this one in a wrong scope can now go away.
>
> It definitely is broader scope than is necessary. I wonder if it makes
> things easier to read, though, the way we would sometimes hoist things
> out of a function into a static-global to make them more obvious. I
> dunno.
Didn't think about it, but it is a worthy point to make. Unlike the
call to l_opt() buried inside a conditional, it makes it stand out
that what we see upfront is one of the commands the function will
run. It is especially valuable when a function is almost exclusively
about running a single command, but then we will have a single call
to l_opt() without much preparations or clean-ups around it, so the
visual noise that detracts our eyes away from the actual commands
may not be all that bad, though.
>> > char *alternates = git_pathdup("objects/info/alternates");
>> >
>> > if (!access(alternates, F_OK)) {
>> > - if (run_command_v_opt(argv, RUN_GIT_CMD|RUN_COMMAND_NO_STDIN))
>> > + if (run_command_l_opt(RUN_GIT_CMD|RUN_COMMAND_NO_STDIN,
>> > + "repack", "-a", "-d", NULL))
>> > die(_("cannot repack to clean up"));
>
> I just happened to notice in this one there is a weird extra space
> before "-a".
Yeah, good eyes.
Thanks.
