Re: [PATCH v2 48/94] builtin/apply: rename 'prefix_' parameter to 'prefix'

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Up to this point, the conversion looks quite sensible, even though I
>>>> think the organization of fields in apply_state do not look logical.
>>>
>>> I'd stop here for now, as everything before this step looks
>>> uncontroversial.  Anybody whose tasked to move the global state for
>>> these variables into a structure would reach the samestate after
>>> applying these 48 patches, modulo minor differences in the way the
>>> comments would say things, how the patches are split and how the
>>> fields in apply_state() are organized.
>>>
>>> One thing that is missing is a counterpart of init_apply_state().
>>> In the early part of patches where it added only "const char *"
>>> borrowed from the caller and fields of intregral type, the lack of
>>> clear_apply_state() did not mattter, but with a few fields with
>>> "string_list" type, anybody who want to make repeated call into the
>>> apply machinery would want a way to release the resource the
>>> structure holds.
>>>
>>> Because 49/94 is a step to add an unfreeable resource, this is a
>>> good place to stop and then add the clean_apply_state() before that
>>> happens, I would think.  After that, I think both the contributor
>>> and the reviewers would benefit if these early patches are merged
>>> early without waiting for the review of the remainder.
>>
>> Ok, I will add add the clean_apply_state() and resend the patches up
>> to that point soon, so that they can be merged early.
>
> Two more comments:
>
>  - Just like the change between v1 and v2, if we were to introduce
>    clear_apply_state(), it would be nicer if it were done early in
>    the series, ideally at the same time as init_apply_state() gets
>    introduced,

Yeah, I have done that in v3.

> or at least no later than the first field that holds
>    resource that needs releasing is added.
>
>  - I didn't double check if 50 and later still had changes that
>    belong to this "early batch that moves things into a struct" (aka
>    cc/apply-introduce-state) topic, as I stopped at 49 and saw the
>    need for clear_apply_state().  So 48 may not be the ideal place
>    to stop.  From a cursory read of their titles, perhaps 49, 50, 56
>    and possibly 60 should be in this early series?  While 60 does
>    sound like an immediate follow-up to 09/94, it depends on a few
>    "die elimination" changes, so I do NOT think it must be in the
>    early batch.

For v3 I stopped at patch 50 from v2.

Patch 56 moves 'struct apply_state' into apply.h and it can logically
belong to another patch series, as anyway 'struct apply_state' is not
usable by other code as long as the related functions
(init_apply_state(), clear_apply_state(), check_apply_state(), ...)
are not also moved to apply.{c,h}.