Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] bisect: simplify the addition of new bisect terms

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Antoine Delaite <antoine.delaite@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>,
	Louis-Alexandre Stuber 
	<louis--alexandre.stuber@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>,
	Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
	Thomas Nguy <thomasxnguy@gmail.com>,
	Valentin Duperray <valentinduperray@gmail.com>,
	Louis Stuber <stuberl@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>,
	Valentin Duperray <Valentin.Duperray@ensimag.imag.fr>,
	Franck Jonas <Franck.Jonas@ensimag.imag.fr>,
	Lucien Kong <Lucien.Kong@ensimag.imag.fr>,
	Thomas Nguy <Thomas.Nguy@ensimag.imag.fr>,
	Huynh Khoi Nguyen Nguyen 
	<Huynh-Khoi-Nguyen.Nguyen@ensimag.imag.fr>,
	Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] bisect: simplify the addition of new bisect terms
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:49:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cSzymZ+JEO8sPrayQ+XNag0kAry_9_eH4=kSqPp=JKk7w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435064084-5554-4-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> wrote:
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index 3ff8723..f22923f 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -2076,14 +2079,32 @@ void parse_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, struct parse_opt_ctx_t *ctx,
>         ctx->argc -= n;
>  }
>
> +extern void read_bisect_terms(const char **bad, const char **good);
> +
>  static int for_each_bad_bisect_ref(const char *submodule, each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data)
>  {
> -       return for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, "refs/bisect/bad", fn, cb_data);
> +       struct strbuf bisect_refs_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> +       const char *bisect_refs_str;
> +       int status;
> +       strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, "refs/bisect/");
> +       strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, name_bad);

A single strbuf_addf() rather than two strbuf_addstr()s?

> +       bisect_refs_str = strbuf_detach(&bisect_refs_buf, NULL);
> +       status = for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, bisect_refs_str, fn, cb_data);
> +       free((char *)bisect_refs_str);

Why the above rather than the simpler?

    strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs, ...);
    status = for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, bisect_refs.buf, fn, cb_data);
    strbuf_release(&bisect_refs);

What am I missing?

> +       return status;
>  }
>
>  static int for_each_good_bisect_ref(const char *submodule, each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data)
>  {
> -       return for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, "refs/bisect/good", fn, cb_data);
> +       struct strbuf bisect_refs_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> +       const char *bisect_refs_str;
> +       int status;
> +       strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, "refs/bisect/");
> +       strbuf_addstr(&bisect_refs_buf, name_bad);
> +       bisect_refs_str = strbuf_detach(&bisect_refs_buf, NULL);
> +       status = for_each_ref_in_submodule(submodule, bisect_refs_str, fn, cb_data);
> +       free((char *)bisect_refs_str);

Ditto.

> +       return status;
>  }