These are patches I've been carrying locally since April-ish, as a follow-up to the "ls-tree --format" topic. I'm submitting them here in reply to Teng's parallel RFC[1]. Teng: This conflicts with your topic, but re my suggestion of submitting a separate clean-up series in [2] maybe you could look this over, see how they differ from yours, and see what would make sense to keep/incorporate for such a clean-up series? E.g. 1/4 here is the opposite approach of your 3/6[3], but as 3/4 eventually shows we don't need that struct for anything except that callback case. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221117113023.65865-1-tenglong.tl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221117.86k03tiudl.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ 3. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221117113023.65865-4-tenglong.tl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (4): ls-tree: don't use "show_tree_data" for "fast" callbacks ls-tree: use a "struct options" ls-tree: fold "show_tree_data" into "cb" struct ls-tree: make "line_termination" less generic builtin/ls-tree.c | 255 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 149 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-) -- 2.38.0.1473.g172bcc0511c
