Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] new git check-ignore sub-command

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Adam Spiers [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Adam Spiers (14):
  Update directory listing API doc to match code
  Improve documentation and comments regarding directory traversal API
  Rename cryptic 'which' variable to more consistent name
  Rename path_excluded() to is_path_excluded()
  Rename excluded_from_list() to is_excluded_from_list()
  Rename excluded() to is_excluded()
  Refactor is_excluded_from_list()
  Refactor is_excluded()
  Refactor is_path_excluded()
  For each exclude pattern, store information about where it came from
  Refactor treat_gitlinks()
  Extract some useful pathspec handling code from builtin/add.c into a
    library
  Provide free_directory() for reclaiming dir_struct memory
  Add git-check-ignore sub-command

Please retitle these to have a short "prefix: " that names a
specific area the series intends to touch.  I retitled your other
series to share "test :" as their common prefix.

Just to clarify, I think most of them can say "dir.c: ".

Sure, I can do that, but shouldn't this convention be documented in
SubmittingPatches?

I saw quite a few decl-after-statement in new code.  Please fix
them.

Again, I can do that no problem, but again this convention is
undocumented and I am not psychic ;-)  I see that a patch was provided
5 years ago to document this, but was apparently never pulled in:

    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/47843/focus=48015

It would save everybody's time if these things are documented, since
then they wouldn't create noise during the review process.

I also see in the same thread that a patch to add
-Wdeclaration-after-statement to CFLAGS was also offered but never
pulled in, presumably on the stated grounds that that option was
relatively recent 5 years ago.  But wouldn't it be trivial to do

    gcc -v --help 2>&1 | grep declaration-after-statement

at build-time?

I'm also curious to know why this convention exists.  Are people
really still compiling git with compilers which don't support C99?

As to the "who owns x->src and when is it freed" question, it may
make sense to give el a "filename" field (command line and other
special cases would get whatever value you deem appropriate, like
NULL or "<command line>"), have x->src point at that field when you
queue many x's to the el in add_exc_from_file_to_list().  Then when
you pop an element in the exclude_stack, you can free el->filename
to plug a potential leak.

Also I do not see why you need to have the strdup() in the caller of
add_excludes_from_file_to_list().  If you need to keep it stable
because you are copying it away in exclude or excludde_list,
wouldn't it make more sense to do that at the beginning of the
callee, i.e. add_excludes_from_file_to_list() function?

Thanks, I'll take a look at these suggestions tomorrow.