Re: [RFC 2/2] exclude-promisor-objects: declare when option is allowed

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:32:47PM -0800, Matthew DeVore wrote:

> > Speaking of which, would this flag work better as a field in
> > setup_revision_opt, which is passed to setup_revisions()? The intent
> > seem to be to influence how we parse command-line arguments, and that's
> > where other similar flags are (e.g., assume_dashdash).
> 
> Good idea. This would solve the problem of mistakenly believing the flag
> matters when it doesn't, since it is in the struct which is used as the
> arguments of the exact function that cares about it. Here's a new patch -
> I'm tweaking e-mail client settings so hopefully this makes it to the list
> without mangling - if not I'll resend it with `git-send-email` later.
> 
> From 941c89fe1e226ed4d210ce35d0d906526b8277ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Matthew DeVore <matvore@google.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:43:32 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] revisions.c: put promisor option in specialized struct
> 
> Put the allow_exclude_promisor_objects flag in setup_revision_opt. When
> it was in rev_info, it was unclear when it was used, since rev_info is
> passed to functions that don't use the flag. This resulted in
> unnecessary setting of the flag in prune.c, so fix that as well.

Thanks, this looks pretty reasonable overall. Two comments:

>  	repo_init_revisions(the_repository, &revs, NULL);
>  	save_commit_buffer = 0;
> -	revs.allow_exclude_promisor_objects_opt = 1;
> -	setup_revisions(ac, av, &revs, NULL);
> +
> +	memset(&s_r_opt, 0, sizeof(s_r_opt));
> +	s_r_opt.allow_exclude_promisor_objects = 1;
> +	setup_revisions(ac, av, &revs, &s_r_opt);

I wonder if a static initializer for setup_revision_opt is worth it. It
would remove the need for this memset. Probably not a big deal either
way, though.

>  static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char
> **argv,
> -			       int *unkc, const char **unkv)
> +			       int *unkc, const char **unkv,
> +			       int allow_exclude_promisor_objects)

Why not pass in the whole setup_revision_opt struct? We don't need
anything else from it yet, but it seems like the point of that struct is
to pass around preferences like this.

-Peff