Re: [PATCH 1/4] Improve message-id generation flow control for format-patch

On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:31:08PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Daniel Barkalow [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow <redacted>
---
 builtin-log.c |   29 ++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c
index dcc9f81..1f74d66 100644
--- a/builtin-log.c
+++ b/builtin-log.c

@@ -576,16 +576,19 @@ static void get_patch_ids(struct rev_info *rev, struct patch_ids *ids, const cha
 	o2->flags = flags2;
 }
 
-static void gen_message_id(char *dest, unsigned int length, char *base)
+static void gen_message_id(struct rev_info *info, char *base)
 {
 	const char *committer = git_committer_info(IDENT_WARN_ON_NO_NAME);
 	const char *email_start = strrchr(committer, '<');
 	const char *email_end = strrchr(committer, '>');
-	if(!email_start || !email_end || email_start > email_end - 1)
+	struct strbuf buf;
+	if (!email_start || !email_end || email_start > email_end - 1)
 		die("Could not extract email from committer identity.");
-	snprintf(dest, length, "%s.%lu.git.%.*s", base,
-		 (unsigned long) time(NULL),
-		 (int)(email_end - email_start - 1), email_start + 1);
+	strbuf_init(&buf, 0);
+	strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.%lu.git.%.*s", base,
+		    (unsigned long) time(NULL),
+		    (int)(email_end - email_start - 1), email_start + 1);
+	info->message_id = buf.buf;

I wonder how the rule established by b315c5c (strbuf change: be
sure ->buf is never ever NULL) and at the beginning of strbuf.h
applies here.  I think the current implementation of strbuf
happens to allow this, and it is very handy.  Perhaps the rule
stated there should be loosened and allow copying the buf away
when you know you have stuff in there (i.e. ->buf != slopbuf).
Pierre, what do you think?

What the patch does itself is much nicer than the original.

  Why wouldn't you just use strbuf_detach ? I mean replacing:

+	info->message_id = buf.buf;

with:

+	info->message_id = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);

  isn't really hard to read, and has the nice side effect to prevent
errors that could happen in the future (like reusing buf and screwing
with info->message_id without noticing it). I'd rather stand on the safe
side here, it's more forward-compatible and idiot-proof[0].


  [0] Not that I believe git contributors are idiots, but I firmly
      believe in defensive programming when it doesn't impact
      performances. And I don't believe it would here.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org