Re: [PATCH] Reuse previous annotation when overwriting a tag

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:54:38AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

+{
+	int i;
+	unsigned long size;
+	enum object_type type;
+	char *buf, *sp, *eol;
+	size_t len;
+
+	sp = buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, &type, &size);
+	if (!buf)
+		return;
+	if (!size || (type != OBJ_TAG)) {

Please lose the extra parents.

What do you mean ?

(...)

This can be done much easier with 'sp = strstr(buf, "\n\n");'.  You can 
even do that before the previous if(), to free() && return if there is no 
body.

(...)

This can be done much easier with 'eob = strstr(sp, "\n" PGP_SIGNATURE 
"\n");'.

I must say I just stole most of it in show_reference() in the same file.

quoted

+}
+
 static void create_tag(const unsigned char *object, const char *tag,
 		       struct strbuf *buf, int message, int sign,
-			   unsigned char *result)
+			unsigned char *prev, unsigned char *result)

This changes indentation.

I'll fix this.

quoted

@@ -282,6 +315,10 @@ static void create_tag(const unsigned char *object, const char *tag,
 		if (fd < 0)
 			die("could not create file '%s': %s",
 						path, strerror(errno));
+
+		if (prev)
+			write_annotation(fd, prev);
+
 		write_or_die(fd, tag_template, strlen(tag_template));

Isn't an "else" missing before the write_or_die() here?

You're obviously right.

(...)

Why not teach write_annotations() (or write_tag_body() like I would prefer 
it to be called) to grok a null_sha1?  It's not like we care for 
performance here, but rather for readability and ease of use.

I would have if I had looked up for is_null_sha1() earlier ;)

Cheers,

Mike