[v2,0/4] midx: split out sub-commands

Message

Taylor Blau Feb. 15, 2021, 9:01 p.m. UTC

Here's a few patches that we could add to the beginning of this series,
or queue up separately.

I think that these are all fairly straightforward, but it would be good
to have Ævar take a look and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong
here.

I'll plan to send a v2 of the reverse index series in a few days with
these four new patches at the beginning.

Taylor Blau (4):
  builtin/multi-pack-index.c: inline 'flags' with options
  builtin/multi-pack-index.c: don't handle 'progress' separately
  builtin/multi-pack-index.c: define common usage with a macro
  builtin/multi-pack-index.c: split sub-commands

 builtin/multi-pack-index.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

--
2.30.0.667.g81c0cbc6fd

Comments

Derrick Stolee Feb. 16, 2021, 11:50 a.m. UTC | #1

On 2/15/2021 4:01 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> Here's a few patches that we could add to the beginning of this series,
> or queue up separately.
> 
> I think that these are all fairly straightforward, but it would be good
> to have Ævar take a look and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong
> here.
> 
> I'll plan to send a v2 of the reverse index series in a few days with
> these four new patches at the beginning.

Thanks, both, for cleaning up a mess I made as a new contributor. These
patches have been enlightening and definitely move the code into a
cleaner and more extensible direction. Thanks!

-Stolee

Taylor Blau Feb. 16, 2021, 2:28 p.m. UTC | #2

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:50:13AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 2/15/2021 4:01 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > Here's a few patches that we could add to the beginning of this series,
> > or queue up separately.
> >
> > I think that these are all fairly straightforward, but it would be good
> > to have Ævar take a look and make sure I'm not doing anything wrong
> > here.
> >
> > I'll plan to send a v2 of the reverse index series in a few days with
> > these four new patches at the beginning.
>
> Thanks, both, for cleaning up a mess I made as a new contributor. These
> patches have been enlightening and definitely move the code into a
> cleaner and more extensible direction. Thanks!

There was hardly a mess to clean-up, and clearly this pattern is new to
me, too :).

I'm planning on resubmitting my tb/reverse-midx series as soon as it
gets another set of reviewer eyes with these four or five patches as new
at the beginning.

I do wonder about the merge conflicts caused between this and your
chunk-format API series. I'd rather not create such conflicts for Junio,
and last I recall there were still some outstanding comments on that
series. So long as you don't think that you resolving those comments
would cause new conflicts, I would assume that Junio's rerere cache
would make applying both easy enough.

If you do think it would cause new conflicts, it may make sense for you
to rebase your branch on mine, but I'm not sure if that's something
you'd want to do or not.

> -Stolee

Thanks,
Taylor