Re: [PATCH 2/8] entry: factor out unlink_entry function

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:50 AM Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:05 PM Thomas Gummerer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Factor out the 'unlink_entry()' function from unpack-trees.c to
entry.c.  It will be used in other places as well in subsequent
steps.

As it's no longer a static function, also move the documentation to
the header file to make it more discoverable.

I also started using unlink_entry() in another place in a local patch
series that I haven't submitted yet (and which I need to get back to
at some point).  So this will help me too.  :-)

quoted

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <redacted>
---
 cache.h        |  5 +++++
 entry.c        | 15 +++++++++++++++
 unpack-trees.c | 19 -------------------
 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
index ca36b44ee0..c1c953e810 100644
--- a/cache.h
+++ b/cache.h

@@ -1542,6 +1542,11 @@ struct checkout {
 extern int checkout_entry(struct cache_entry *ce, const struct checkout *state, char *topath);
 extern void enable_delayed_checkout(struct checkout *state);
 extern int finish_delayed_checkout(struct checkout *state);
+/*
+ * Unlink the last component and schedule the leading directories for
+ * removal, such that empty directories get removed.
+ */
+extern void unlink_entry(const struct cache_entry *ce);

I'm torn. We try to remove 'extern' but I can see you may want to add
it here to be consistent with others. And removing extern even from
functions from entry.c only would cause some conflicts.

I wonder if we should move the 'removal' variable in symlinks to
'struct checkout' to reduce another global variable. But I guess
that's the problem for another day. It's not the focus of this series.

"move the 'removal' variable in symlinks"?  I'm having a really hard
time parsing that phrase and the sentence it's embedded in.  Could you
reword for me Duy?