Re: [PATCH v4 20/25] sequencer: refactor write_message()

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

If I were doing this, I would make this into three separate steps:

    - move the strbuf_release(msgbuf) to the caller in
      do_pick_commit();

    - add the missing rollback_lock_file(), which is a bugfix; and
      then finally

    - allow the helper to take not a strbuf but <buf, len> pair as
      parameters.

The end result of this patch achieves two thirds of the above, but
especially given that write_message() only has two call sites in a
single function, I think it is OK and preferrable even to do all
three.

Ah, make that four steps.  The final one is:

    - add append_eol parameter that nobody uses at this step in the
      series.

This is a new feature to the helper.  While it is OK to have it as a
preparatory step in this series, it is easier to understand if it
kept as a separate step.  It is even more preferrable if it is made
as a preparatory step in a series that adds a caller that passes
true to append_eol to this helper, or if that real change is small
enough, part of that patch that adds such a caller, not as a
separate step.

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

If I were doing this, I would make this into three separate steps:

    - move the strbuf_release(msgbuf) to the caller in
      do_pick_commit();

    - add the missing rollback_lock_file(), which is a bugfix; and
      then finally

    - allow the helper to take not a strbuf but <buf, len> pair as
      parameters.

The end result of this patch achieves two thirds of the above, but
especially given that write_message() only has two call sites in a
single function, I think it is OK and preferrable even to do all
three.

Ah, make that four steps.  The final one is:

    - add append_eol parameter that nobody uses at this step in the
      series.

Done,
Dscho