Re: [PATCHv2 10/19] git-submodule.sh: convert test -a/-o to && and ||

Elia Pinto [off-list ref] writes:

This is version 2 of the patch to git-submodule of the 
patch series "convert  test -a/-o to && and ||". 
It contains the fixes identified by Johannes and
Matthieu. 

This version of the patch (not the whole series) is

Reviewed-by: Matthieu Moy <redacted>

Some comments for next time:

* I agree with Johannes that splitting the series with one patch per
  file is not the right way to split. As a reviewer, I want to

  - check that -a trivially translates to &&
  - check that -o trivially translates to ||
  - check non-trivial cases

  Interleaving these cases (especially the trivial and non-trivial
  cases) makes the review much harder. For this kind of series, the
  change is trivial, but the review is not (Johannes caught a || Vs &&
  inversion that I didn't find for example, which is quite serious), so
  the "optimize your patches for review" is even more important than
  usual.

* Again, to avoid mixing trivial and non-trivial changes, ...

turning a echo into a printf is good, but would be better done
separately.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

2014-05-22 8:49 GMT+02:00 Matthieu Moy [off-list ref]:

Elia Pinto [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This is version 2 of the patch to git-submodule of the
patch series "convert  test -a/-o to && and ||".
It contains the fixes identified by Johannes and
Matthieu.

This version of the patch (not the whole series) is

Reviewed-by: Matthieu Moy <redacted>

Some comments for next time:

* I agree with Johannes that splitting the series with one patch per
  file is not the right way to split. As a reviewer, I want to

  - check that -a trivially translates to &&
  - check that -o trivially translates to ||
  - check non-trivial cases

  Interleaving these cases (especially the trivial and non-trivial
  cases) makes the review much harder. For this kind of series, the
  change is trivial, but the review is not (Johannes caught a || Vs &&
  inversion that I didn't find for example, which is quite serious), so
  the "optimize your patches for review" is even more important than
  usual.

* Again, to avoid mixing trivial and non-trivial changes, ...

First of all, thank you. I will take note of your valuable suggestions
for the future.

quoted

@@ -1059,13 +1059,17 @@ cmd_summary() {
              while read mod_src mod_dst sha1_src sha1_dst status sm_path
              do
                      # Always show modules deleted or type-changed (blob<->module)
-                     test $status = D -o $status = T && echo "$sm_path" && continue
+                     case "$status" in
+                     [DT])
+                             printf '%s\n' "$sm_path" &&
+                             continue
+                     esac

turning a echo into a printf is good, but would be better done
separately.

I had thought, but the change was in the fix of Johannes, and it did
not think was right to change this, especially that it was right
anyway. But I understand very well the observation.

Best Regards

--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Am 5/22/2014 10:38, schrieb Elia Pinto:

2014-05-22 8:49 GMT+02:00 Matthieu Moy [off-list ref]:

quoted

Elia Pinto [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

@@ -1059,13 +1059,17 @@ cmd_summary() {
              while read mod_src mod_dst sha1_src sha1_dst status sm_path
              do
                      # Always show modules deleted or type-changed (blob<->module)
-                     test $status = D -o $status = T && echo "$sm_path" && continue
+                     case "$status" in
+                     [DT])
+                             printf '%s\n' "$sm_path" &&
+                             continue
+                     esac

turning a echo into a printf is good, but would be better done
separately.

I had thought, but the change was in the fix of Johannes, and it did
not think was right to change this, especially that it was right
anyway. But I understand very well the observation.

My intent was to show the final state of this piece of code. I do agree
with Matthieu that the change from 'echo' to 'printf' is a different topic
(in particular, since this is not the only point in the script that would
need that change). Sorry for having sent you in circles.

-- Hannes