On 07/25/2016 04:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff Hostetler <jeffh...@microsoft.com> writes:

+static void wt_porcelain_v2_print(struct wt_status *s);
+

There is no point in this forward declaration, if you just place the
implementation of these functions here, no?

Right. I just did it that way to make the diffs with the previous
commit draw a little cleaner.  But I can take it out.


+/*
+ * Print porcelain v2 info for tracked entries with changes.
+ */
+static void wt_porcelain_v2_print_changed_entry(
+       struct string_list_item *it,
+       struct wt_status *s)
+{
+...
+       fprintf(s->fp, "%c %s %s %06o %06o %06o %s %s R%d %s",

It is misleading to always say R in the output when there is no
rename, isn't it?

Yes, especially if we add it for copied entries too.
I was just looking for a way to have a fixed format.
If we make the R%d field optional, then the first pathname
is ambiguous.  That gets me back to an earlier draft where
we have rename and non-rename line types.

I'll split this up into 1 pathname and 2 pathname forms,
and only include the R%d (or the C%d) field in the latter.


+        * Note that this is a last-one-wins for each the individual
+        * stage [123] columns in the event of multiple cache rows
+        * for a stage.

Just FYI, the usual lingo we use for that is "multiple cache entries
for the same stage", I would think.

thanks.


+        */
+       memset(stages, 0, sizeof(stages));
+       sum = 0;
+       pos = cache_name_pos(it->string, strlen(it->string));
+       assert(pos < 0);
+       pos = -pos-1;
+       while (pos < active_nr) {
+               ce = active_cache[pos++];
+               stage = ce_stage(ce);
+               if (strcmp(ce->name, it->string) || !stage)
+                       break;
+               stages[stage - 1].mode = ce->ce_mode;
+               hashcpy(stages[stage - 1].oid.hash, ce->sha1);
+               sum++;
+       }
+       if (!sum)
+               die("BUG: unmerged entry without any stages");

Hmm, we seem to already have d->stagemask; if you call that variable
"sum" anyway, perhaps its computation can be more like

        sum |= 1 << (stage - 1);

so that you can compare it with d->stagemask for this sanity check?

good point.

thanks
jeff


--
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

Reply via email to