Re: [PATCH] revert: clarify seemingly bogus OPT_END repetition

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Peff & Jacob,

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Jacob Keller wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:28:20PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > Something like the patch below.
> >
> > I admit this isn't buggy _now_, so this is potentially just churn. It
> > does make further patches look nicer, though (they don't have to add
> > apparently meaningless OPT_END() slots).
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Subject: [PATCH] parse_options: allocate a new array when concatenating
> >
> > In exactly one callers (builtin/revert.c), we build up the
> > options list dynamically from multiple arrays. We do so by
> > manually inserting "filler" entries into one array, and then
> > copying the other array into the allocated space.
> >
> > This is tedious and error-prone, as you have to adjust the
> > filler any time the second array is modified (although we do
> > at least check and die() when the counts do not match up).
> >
> > Instead, let's just allocate a new array.
> 
> This seems much preferable to me.

Yes, this is better than my patch.

BTW Jacob, would you terribly mind cutting the quoted parts properly (I
cut 112 lines)? It may not seem like much, but I seem to spend more and
more of my email time budget on skimming unaddressed remainders of quoted
mails, and I would much rather spend that time on something productive.

Thanks,
Johannes