On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, TamerTas <tamer...@outlook.com> wrote: > Signed-off-by: TamerTas <tamer...@outlook.com> > --- > Thanks again for the feedback it's been a great learning experience. Comments > Below :) > > I have refactored the commit [1] to * suggested changes [2]. > format-patch was placing 2 hyphens instead of 3 but it's fixed now. > I've turned the table into a multidimensional one and I didn't put > the inner braces since this was used method in other multidimensional arrays > throughout the project.
Thanks, this is looking better. A few minor comments below, but it's probably not worth a re-roll. What is important is that you have had a taste of the review process on this project, and the GSoC mentors have had a chance to observe your abilities and reviewer interaction. > I've also changed shortname to short_name since that seems to be how > variables are named > in this project. This is a conceptually distinct change which should be done as a separate "cleanup" patch since it otherwise adds noise which obscures the "real" change (rewriting the if-chain). One of the goals of a patch submitter is to make the review process as streamlined as possible, so noise should be avoided. Apart from that, unless the variable is really improperly named and misleading, this sort of change (renaming "shortname" to "short_name") is likely to be considered unnecessary code churn which will probably be rejected. At any given time, there are many patch series in-flight which Junio has to juggle, and code churn increases possibility of conflict between them, which makes his job more difficult. > It appears that table-driven code might be more readable after all. > > [1]http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-GSOC2014-install-branch-config-change-logical-chain-to-lookup-table-tp7605550.html > [2]http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-GSOC2014-install-branch-config-change-logical-chain-to-lookup-table-tp7605550p7605605.html > --- > branch.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++------------------------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c > index 723a36b..eab6fa4 100644 > --- a/branch.c > +++ b/branch.c > @@ -49,13 +49,27 @@ static int should_setup_rebase(const char *origin) > > void install_branch_config(int flag, const char *local, const char *origin, > const char *remote) > { > - const char *shortname = remote + 11; > + const char *short_name = remote + 11; > + const char *setup_message[][2][2] = { > + N_("Branch %s set up to track local ref %s."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track local branch %s."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track remote ref %s."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track remote branch %s from %s."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track local ref %s by rebasing."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track local branch %s by rebasing."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track remote ref %s by rebasing."), > + N_("Branch %s set up to track remote branch %s from %s by > rebasing.") > + }; > + > int remote_is_branch = starts_with(remote, "refs/heads/"); > struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT; > int rebasing = should_setup_rebase(origin); > > + const char *remote_name = remote_is_branch? short_name : remote; > + const char *message = > setup_message[!!rebasing][!!origin][!!remote_is_branch]; In the previous review, it was suggested to pull this value out into its own variable to make the code less noisy since it was being accessed frequently in just a few lines of code. However, since you've collapsed the code to a single printf_ln() invocation in this patch, the separate variable may be not helping clarity (especially as the assignment is divorced by some distance from the code which references it). The same is probably true of 'remote_name' which is used in just the one printf_ln() call. > if (remote_is_branch > - && !strcmp(local, shortname) > + && !strcmp(local, short_name) > && !origin) { > warning(_("Not setting branch %s as its own upstream."), > local); > @@ -77,29 +91,7 @@ void install_branch_config(int flag, const char *local, > const char *origin, cons > strbuf_release(&key); > > if (flag & BRANCH_CONFIG_VERBOSE) { > - if (remote_is_branch && origin) > - printf_ln(rebasing ? > - _("Branch %s set up to track remote branch > %s from %s by rebasing.") : > - _("Branch %s set up to track remote branch > %s from %s."), > - local, shortname, origin); > - else if (remote_is_branch && !origin) > - printf_ln(rebasing ? > - _("Branch %s set up to track local branch > %s by rebasing.") : > - _("Branch %s set up to track local branch > %s."), > - local, shortname); > - else if (!remote_is_branch && origin) > - printf_ln(rebasing ? > - _("Branch %s set up to track remote ref %s > by rebasing.") : > - _("Branch %s set up to track remote ref > %s."), > - local, remote); > - else if (!remote_is_branch && !origin) > - printf_ln(rebasing ? > - _("Branch %s set up to track local ref %s > by rebasing.") : > - _("Branch %s set up to track local ref > %s."), > - local, remote); > - else > - die("BUG: impossible combination of %d and %p", > - remote_is_branch, origin); > + printf_ln(_(message), local, remote_name, origin); > } > } > > --- > 1.7.9.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
