On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 12:43:22AM +0800, shejialuo wrote: > Hi All: > > This version handles the following problems: > > 1. Patrick advices that I should not use `va_copy` in the changed > `report` function. Actually this is a mistake, this version avoids > redundant `ap` copy. > 2. Patrick advices I should rebase [v14 05/11] into [v14 04/11]. I > follow this advice in this version. > 3. Patrick advices that we should put [v14 06/11] before we introduce > ref-related operations. This version reorders the commit sequence. It's > a minor change. > 4. Patrick suggests at current we should not add `git refs verify` > command into "git-fsck(1)". This is because we should disable this new > check by default for the users. Many users use "git-fsck(1)" in their daily > workflow. We should not be aggressive. However, if we provide this > mechanism in this series, we will again make more complexity. So this > version drop patch [v14 09/11]. Also because of dropping, change the > test file to use "git refs verify" command instead of "git fsck" > command. > 5. Patrick suggests that we should use `ends_with` instead of > `strip_suffix`, fix. > > There is another important problem this patch solves: > > At v13, Junio has suggested that the `files_fsck_refs_fn` should be > adapted to Patrick's change. Actually, I made a bad design before. I > should always pass the `ref_store` structure. So I change it to > > -typedef int (*files_fsck_refs_fn)(struct fsck_options *o, > - const char *gitdir, > +typedef int (*files_fsck_refs_fn)(struct ref_store *ref_store, > + struct fsck_options *o, > const char *refs_check_dir, > struct dir_iterator *iter); > > `gitdir` could be got by using `ref_store` parameter. By using > `ref_store` parameter, we provide extensibility here. If something else > change, we merely need to change "files_fsck_refs_fn" prototype. > > Because I drop one patch and rebase one patch. I provide the `interdiff` > for reviewers to make the life easier. > > Due to the deadline of the GSoC, I will speed up the review feedback > process. I've got another small set of nits, almost not worth addressing. I was a bit torn whether to send them or not as the series is in a good shape already, in my opinion. But let's maybe wait one or two more days for additional feedback, and then (hopefully) reroll this a final time. Thanks for all your work! Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
