Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] ref-filter: use strbuf_split_str_omit_term()
From: Eric Sunshine <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:08:16
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:30:05AM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote:quoted
Use the newly introduced strbuf_split_str_omit_term() rather than using strbuf_split_str() and manually removing the ',' terminator. Helped-by: Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <redacted> ---Did you consider just using string_list_split for this? AFAICT, you don't care about the results being strbufs themselves, and it would do what you want without having to bother with patch 1. [...] Sorry to waltz into a review of v5 with a suggestion to throw out all the work done in previous iterations. :-/ I just think the strbuf_split interface is kind of clunky and I'd be happy if we could slowly get rid of it rather than growing it. [...]
That's a nice idea, however, I'm not sure if making it part of this series this late in the game is a good idea. The series has gone through major changes and heavy review in each of the preceding versions, and turnaround time has been consequently quite slow (due both to the amount of work required by Karthik for each version, and to the amount of time needed by reviewers to digest all the new changes). v4 was the first one which had settled to the point where only minor changes were needed, and we were hoping to land the series with v5. (A few larger changes were also discussed in v4 reviews, but we concluded that they could be done as follow-up patches.) With that in mind, it might be better to make this change as a followup to this series. On the other hand, as you say, waiting would expand the strbuf_split interface undesirably, so the alternative would be for Karthik to submit v6 with this change only (to wit: drop patch 1 and rewrite patch 2 as you've shown). While such a change will again require careful review, at least it is well localized, and Karthik's turnaround time shouldn't be too bad. So...