Re: [PATCH v3] fast-export: fix regression skipping some merge-commits

["Martin Ågren" <martin.agren@gmail.com>]

On 21 April 2018 at 05:43, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> but I do not think the updated "fix" below is better.  It might be
> just aesthetics and I suspect I won't find it as disturbing if we
> could push with
>
>         object_array_push(commits, (struct object *)commit);
>
> or something that is more clearly symmetric to object_array_pop().
> The "Queue again" comment is needed only because use of "add"
> highlights the lack of symmetry.
>
> With add_object_array(), it looks somewhat more odd than your
> previous
>
>         peek it to check;
>         if (it should not be molested)
>                 return;
>         pop to mark it consumed;
>         consume it;
>
> sequence, in which peek() and pop() were more obviously related
> operations on the same "array" object.
>
> And I do not think it is a good idea to introduce _push() only for
> symmetry (it would merely be a less capable version of add whose
> name is spelled differently).  Hence my preference for peek-check-pop
> over pop-oops-push-again-but-push-spelled-as-add.
>
> Not worth a reroll, though.  I just wanted to spread better design
> sense to contributors ;-)

Thanks for your wise words. :-) One thing that just occurred to me is
that if the original site where we `add_object_array()` all objects
starts adding a non-NULL `name` for some reason, then we need to
remember to do the same with this new caller. I suspect that at that
time, at the latest, we will be switching to peek-check-pop.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Martin