Re: [PATCH 4/4] trace2: remove unneeded calls to generate 'def_param' set

[Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/6/24 4:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 2024.03.04 15:40, Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhostetler@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Now that "trace2_cmd_name()" implicitly calls "trace2_cmd_list_config()"
> > > and "trace2_cmd_list_env_vars()", we don't need to explicitly call them.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhostetler@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   git.c | 6 ------
> > >   1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
> > > index 7068a184b0a..a769d72ab8f 100644
> > > --- a/git.c
> > > +++ b/git.c
> > > @@ -373,8 +373,6 @@ static int handle_alias(int *argcp, const char ***argv)
> > >   			strvec_pushv(&child.args, (*argv) + 1);
> > >   
> > >   			trace2_cmd_alias(alias_command, child.args.v);
> > > -			trace2_cmd_list_config();
> > > -			trace2_cmd_list_env_vars();
> > >   			trace2_cmd_name("_run_shell_alias_");
> > >   
> > >   			ret = run_command(&child);
> > > @@ -411,8 +409,6 @@ static int handle_alias(int *argcp, const char ***argv)
> > >   		COPY_ARRAY(new_argv + count, *argv + 1, *argcp);
> > >   
> > >   		trace2_cmd_alias(alias_command, new_argv);
> > > -		trace2_cmd_list_config();
> > > -		trace2_cmd_list_env_vars();
> > >   
> > >   		*argv = new_argv;
> > >   		*argcp += count - 1;
> > > @@ -462,8 +458,6 @@ static int run_builtin(struct cmd_struct *p, int argc, const char **argv)
> > >   
> > >   	trace_argv_printf(argv, "trace: built-in: git");
> > >   	trace2_cmd_name(p->cmd);
> > > -	trace2_cmd_list_config();
> > > -	trace2_cmd_list_env_vars();
> > >   
> > >   	validate_cache_entries(the_repository->index);
> > >   	status = p->fn(argc, argv, prefix);
> > > --
> > > gitgitgadget
> >
> > I'd personally prefer to see this squashed into Patch 3, but I don't
> > feel too strongly about it. Either way, the series LGTM.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Let's see what JeffH says about this.  I agree with you that making
> some stuff redundant in [Patch 3/4] and fixing the redundancy in
> this step does feel somewhat roundabout way of doing this.
>
> Thanks.

Sure we can merge them.  That's fine.  I can send a V4 or if you want
to just squash them together that's fine.

Jeff