From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com>
Cc: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
"Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] worktree: refactor lock_reason_valid and lock_reason to be more sensible
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 02:21:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cS+djfZjoEbBNrVGpd4g6ZhsioSqK=ZyKprTwA0Hy4iiw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC05387rFq0yJ3nUVkb0jUyQy=EmZiCnBW9L53A6GS5=U0qUDg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 1:45 AM Nickolai Belakovski
<nbelakovski@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > That said, I wouldn't necessarily oppose renaming the function, but I
> > also don't think it's particularly important to do so.
>
> To me, I would just go lookup the signature of worktree_lock_reason
> and see that it returns a pointer and I'd be satisfied with that. I
> could also infer that from looking at the code if I'm just skimming
> through. But if I see code like "reason = is_worktree_locked(wt)" I'm
> like hold on, what's going on here?! :P
I don't feel strongly about it, and, as indicated, wouldn't
necessarily be opposed to it. If you do want to make that change,
perhaps send it as the second patch of a 2-patch series in which patch
1 just updates the API documentation. That way, if anyone does oppose
the rename in patch 2, then that patch can be dropped without having
to re-send.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-29 6:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-24 6:39 [PATCH] worktree: populate lock_reason in get_worktrees and light refactor/cleanup in worktree files nbelakovski
2018-10-24 8:11 ` Eric Sunshine
2018-10-25 5:46 ` Nickolai Belakovski
2018-10-25 5:51 ` [PATCH] worktree: refactor lock_reason_valid and lock_reason to be more sensible nbelakovski
2018-10-25 6:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-28 21:56 ` Nickolai Belakovski
2018-10-29 3:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-29 5:43 ` Nickolai Belakovski
2018-10-29 6:42 ` Junio C Hamano
[not found] ` <CAC05386cSUhBm4TLD5NUeb5Ut9GT5=h-1MvqDnFpuc+UdZFmwg@mail.gmail.com>
2018-10-28 23:02 ` Eric Sunshine
2018-10-29 1:10 ` Nickolai Belakovski
2018-10-29 4:01 ` Eric Sunshine
2018-10-29 5:45 ` Nickolai Belakovski
2018-10-29 6:21 ` Eric Sunshine [this message]
2018-10-30 6:24 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] worktree: update documentation for lock_reason and lock_reason_valid nbelakovski
2018-10-31 2:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-30 6:24 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] worktree: rename is_worktree_locked to worktree_lock_reason nbelakovski
2018-10-31 2:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-25 19:14 ` [PATCH] worktree: populate lock_reason in get_worktrees and light refactor/cleanup in worktree files Eric Sunshine
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPig+cS+djfZjoEbBNrVGpd4g6ZhsioSqK=ZyKprTwA0Hy4iiw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=nbelakovski@gmail.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.