Hi Thomas,

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Thomas Gummerer wrote:

 2:  63f2e0e6f9 !  2:  2d45985676 strbuf.c: add `strbuf_join_argv()`
    @@ -14,19 +14,17 @@
      	strbuf_setlen(sb, sb->len + sb2->len);
      }
      
    -+const char *strbuf_join_argv(struct strbuf *buf,
    -+			     int argc, const char **argv, char delim)
    ++void strbuf_join_argv(struct strbuf *buf,
    ++		      int argc, const char **argv, char delim)

While the patch series does not use the return value, I have to ask
whether it would really be useful to change it to return `void`. I could
imagine that there may already be quite a few code paths that would love
to use strbuf_join_argv(), *and* would benefit from the `const char *`
return value.

In other words: just because the *current* patches do not make use of that
quite convenient return value does not mean that we should remove that
convenience.

 7:  a2abd1b4bd !  8:  974dbaa492 stash: convert apply to builtin
    @@ -370,18 +370,20 @@
     +
     +			if (diff_tree_binary(&out, &info->w_commit)) {
     +				strbuf_release(&out);
    -+				return -1;
    ++				return error(_("Could not generate diff %s^!."),
    ++					     oid_to_hex(&info->w_commit));

Please start the argument of an `error()` call with a lower-case letter.

     +			}
     +
     +			ret = apply_cached(&out);
     +			strbuf_release(&out);
     +			if (ret)
    -+				return -1;
    ++				return error(_("Conflicts in index."
    ++					       "Try without --index."));

Same here.

     +
     +			discard_cache();
     +			read_cache();
     +			if (write_cache_as_tree(&index_tree, 0, NULL))
    -+				return -1;
    ++				return error(_("Could not save index tree"));

And here.

15:  bd827be103 ! 15:  989db67e9a stash: convert create to builtin
    @@ -119,7 +119,6 @@
     +static int check_changes(struct pathspec ps, int include_untracked)
     +{
     +	int result;
    -+	int ret = 0;

I was curious about this change, and could not find it in the
git-stash-v10 tag of https://github.com/ungps/git...

18:  1c501ad666 ! 18:  c90e30173a stash: convert save to builtin
    @@ -72,8 +72,10 @@
     +			     git_stash_helper_save_usage,
     +			     PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH);
     +
    -+	if (argc)
    -+		stash_msg = (char*) strbuf_join_argv(&buf, argc, argv, ' ');
    ++	if (argc) {
    ++		strbuf_join_argv(&buf, argc, argv, ' ');
    ++		stash_msg = buf.buf;
    ++	}

Aha! So there *was* a user of that return value. I really would prefer a
non-void return value here.

19:  c4401b21db ! 19:  4360ea875d stash: convert `stash--helper.c` into `stash.c`
    @@ -264,9 +320,9 @@
     -	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options,
     -			     git_stash_helper_create_usage,
     -			     0);
    -+	/* Startinf with argv[1], since argv[0] is "create" */
    -+	stash_msg = (char*) strbuf_join_argv(&stash_msg_buf, argc - 1,
    -+					     ++argv, ' ');
    ++	/* Starting with argv[1], since argv[0] is "create" */
    ++	strbuf_join_argv(&stash_msg_buf, argc - 1, ++argv, ' ');
    ++	stash_msg = stash_msg_buf.buf;

Again, I would strongly prefer the convenience of assigning the return
value directly, rather than having two lines.

    @@ -375,10 +425,8 @@
     +			 * they need to be immediately followed by a string
     +			 * (i.e.`-m"foobar"` or `--message="foobar"`).
     +			 */
    -+			if ((strlen(argv[i]) > 2 &&
    -+			     !strncmp(argv[i], "-m", 2)) ||
    -+			    (strlen(argv[i]) > 10 &&
    -+			     !strncmp(argv[i], "--message=", 10)))
    ++			if (starts_with(argv[i], "-m") ||
    ++			    starts_with(argv[i], "--message="))

Very nice.

20:  92dc11fd16 ! 20:  a384b05008 stash: optimize `get_untracked_files()` and `check_changes()`
    @@ -52,7 +52,6 @@
     +static int check_changes_tracked_files(struct pathspec ps)
      {
      	int result;
    --	int ret = 0;

I also wonder about this change, in light of...

      	struct rev_info rev;
      	struct object_id dummy;
     -	struct strbuf out = STRBUF_INIT;
    @@ -99,8 +98,8 @@
     -	if (!check_changes(ps, include_untracked)) {
     +	if (!check_changes(ps, include_untracked, &untracked_files)) {
      		ret = 1;

this here line. How does that work, if `ret` is removed? And why didn't
the `make DEVELOPER=1` complain about that unused `ret` variable before?

    - 		*stash_msg = NULL;
      		goto done;
    + 	}
     @@
      		goto done;

The rest of the changes looks pretty sensible to me (indentation/wrapping
changes, mostly, with a couple of commit message/typo fixes thrown in).

Maybe you have a commit hash, or even better, a tag in a public Git
repository somewhere, so that Paul can pick it up more easily (and compare
the changes with his latest local branch)?

Thank you!
Dscho