Re: [PATCH v2 22/33] diff-merges: implement new values for --diff-merges

[Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>]

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:50 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We first implement new options as exact synonyms for their original
>> counterparts, to get all the infrastructure right, and keep functional
>> improvements for later commits.
>>
>> The following values are implemented:
>>
>> --diff-merges=          old equivalent
>> first|first-parent    = --first-parent (only format implications)
>> sep|separate          = -m
>> comb|combined         = -c
>> dense| dense-combined = --cc
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  diff-merges.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/diff-merges.c b/diff-merges.c
>> index 6446e2093661..cba391604ac7 100644
>> --- a/diff-merges.c
>> +++ b/diff-merges.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,11 @@ static void set_separate(struct rev_info *revs) {
>>         revs->separate_merges = 1;
>>  }
>>
>> +static void set_first_parent(struct rev_info *revs) {
>> +       set_separate(revs);
>> +       revs->first_parent_merges = 1;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void set_m(struct rev_info *revs) {
>>         /*
>>          * To "diff-index", "-m" means "match missing", and to the "log"
>> @@ -38,11 +43,19 @@ static void set_dense_combined(struct rev_info *revs) {
>>  }
>>
>>  static void set_diff_merges(struct rev_info *revs, const char *optarg) {
>> -       if (!strcmp(optarg, "off")) {
>> +       if (0) ;
>
> Leftover cruft from some intermediate changes or something?

No. It's just an idiom for if-switch, making all the actual cases look
the same. Without this the first one looks special when in fact it
isn't. I won't die for it though.

>
>> +       else if (!strcmp(optarg, "off")   || !strcmp(optarg, "none"))
>>                 suppress(revs);
>> -       } else {
>> +       else if (!strcmp(optarg, "first") || !strcmp(optarg, "first-parent"))
>> +               set_first_parent(revs);
>> +       else if (!strcmp(optarg, "sep")   || !strcmp(optarg, "separate"))
>> +               set_separate(revs);
>> +       else if (!strcmp(optarg, "comb")  || !strcmp(optarg, "combined"))
>> +               set_combined(revs);
>> + else if (!strcmp(optarg, "dense") || !strcmp(optarg,
>> "dense-combined"))
>> +               set_dense_combined(revs);
>> +       else
>
> Not sure I like the special-casing for "sep" and "comb".  "dense"
> seems okay since it's a real word.

That was a poor-man attempt at unique shortcuts made by hand, as well as
a reminder to consider to re-write this using generic options framework
that will do it automagically. They are just a few first letters,
nothing more. That's why I didn't even document them.

> Since you're adding short versions of m, c, and cc later in the
> series, do we need these other special-case forms?

No, I don't think we do necessarily need them, but then they do no harm
either, so I didn't remove them when I added m, c, and cc. Neither was I
sure we do need these m, c, and cc in the first place.

Thanks,
-- Sergey