Message ID | ccb30dfc3c4c9ad2fc7cd33dc72ecf768827ed9f.1610055365.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | Add directory rename detection to merge-ort | expand |
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:35:52PM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > > Port some directory rename handling changes from merge-recursive.c's > detect_and_process_renames() to the same-named function of merge-ort.c. Thanks, having the source be explicitly named makes it much easier to check over the reimplementation. > This does not yet add any use or handling of directory renames, just the > outline for where we start to compute them. Thus, a future patch will > add port additional changes to merge-ort's detect_and_process_renames(). Noted. > @@ -1086,13 +1098,24 @@ static int detect_and_process_renames(struct merge_options *opt, > { > struct diff_queue_struct combined; > struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; > - int s, clean = 1; > + int need_dir_renames, s, clean = 1; > > memset(&combined, 0, sizeof(combined)); > > detect_regular_renames(opt, merge_base, side1, MERGE_SIDE1); > detect_regular_renames(opt, merge_base, side2, MERGE_SIDE2); > > + need_dir_renames = > + !opt->priv->call_depth && > + (opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE || > + opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT); Would it be worth it to DRY up this and merge-recursive.c's implementation, perhaps: int needs_dir_renames(struct merge_options *opt) { return !opt->priv->call_depth && (opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE || opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT); } and then calling that in both places? > + if (need_dir_renames) { > + for (s = MERGE_SIDE1; s <= MERGE_SIDE2; s++) > + get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, s, &clean); Not necessarily related to this patch, but just something that I noticed while reading the series: I don't find this for-loop to be any clearer than: if (need_dir_renames) { get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE1, &clean); get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE2, &clean); /* ... */ } In fact, I think that I find the above clearer than the for-loop. There's no opportunity to write (...; s < MERGE_SIDE2) when you meant (...; s <= MERGE_SIDE2), and seeing two lines explicitly makes it clearer that you're really doing the same thing to each side of the merge. Anyway, I may feel totally different than others, and of course I haven't read many of the previous series as closely as this (and so this may already be an established pattern and I'm just cutting against the grain here), but those are my $.02. Thanks, Taylor
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:35:52PM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > > > > Port some directory rename handling changes from merge-recursive.c's > > detect_and_process_renames() to the same-named function of merge-ort.c. > > Thanks, having the source be explicitly named makes it much easier to > check over the reimplementation. > > > This does not yet add any use or handling of directory renames, just the > > outline for where we start to compute them. Thus, a future patch will > > add port additional changes to merge-ort's detect_and_process_renames(). > > Noted. > > > @@ -1086,13 +1098,24 @@ static int detect_and_process_renames(struct merge_options *opt, > > { > > struct diff_queue_struct combined; > > struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; > > - int s, clean = 1; > > + int need_dir_renames, s, clean = 1; > > > > memset(&combined, 0, sizeof(combined)); > > > > detect_regular_renames(opt, merge_base, side1, MERGE_SIDE1); > > detect_regular_renames(opt, merge_base, side2, MERGE_SIDE2); > > > > + need_dir_renames = > > + !opt->priv->call_depth && > > + (opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE || > > + opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT); > > Would it be worth it to DRY up this and merge-recursive.c's > implementation, perhaps: > > int needs_dir_renames(struct merge_options *opt) > { > return !opt->priv->call_depth && > (opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE || > opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT); > } > > and then calling that in both places? If the intent was to keep merge-recursive.c indefinitely, then yes it would. However, the intent is to (1) avoid touching merge-recursive.c so I don't destabilize it and so folks can fall back to it, (2) get merge-ort.c completed, and people to adopt and feel confident in it, (3) delete merge-recursive.[ch]. This has come up a few other times in a review on the series, because there are even examples of copied-and-unmodified functions; see https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGtpXRSz+ngFz20j8W4qgpb8juogsLf6HF7b0-Pt=s6=g@mail.gmail.com/ and https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEEoqOer11BYrqSVE9E4HcT5MNWcRm7ZHBQ7MVZRUDVXw@mail.gmail.com/. I know it seems weird to intentionally repeat, but since the goal is to nuke merge-recursive.c, I'm doing it as a temporary measure. > > > + if (need_dir_renames) { > > + for (s = MERGE_SIDE1; s <= MERGE_SIDE2; s++) > > + get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, s, &clean); > > Not necessarily related to this patch, but just something that I noticed > while reading the series: I don't find this for-loop to be any clearer > than: > > if (need_dir_renames) { > get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE1, &clean); > get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE2, &clean); > /* ... */ > } > That also makes it more similar to the calls I make to detect_regular_renames() above, where I explicitly called it twice instead of using a loop. I like the suggested change; I'll update it. > In fact, I think that I find the above clearer than the for-loop. > There's no opportunity to write (...; s < MERGE_SIDE2) when you meant > (...; s <= MERGE_SIDE2), and seeing two lines explicitly makes it > clearer that you're really doing the same thing to each side of the > merge. > > Anyway, I may feel totally different than others, and of course I > haven't read many of the previous series as closely as this (and so this > may already be an established pattern and I'm just cutting against the > grain here), but those are my $.02. > > Thanks, > Taylor As always, thanks for the review!
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:15:11PM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > If the intent was to keep merge-recursive.c indefinitely, then yes it > would. However, the intent is to (1) avoid touching merge-recursive.c > so I don't destabilize it and so folks can fall back to it, (2) get > merge-ort.c completed, and people to adopt and feel confident in it, > (3) delete merge-recursive.[ch]. > > This has come up a few other times in a review on the series, because > there are even examples of copied-and-unmodified functions; see > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGtpXRSz+ngFz20j8W4qgpb8juogsLf6HF7b0-Pt=s6=g@mail.gmail.com/ > and https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEEoqOer11BYrqSVE9E4HcT5MNWcRm7ZHBQ7MVZRUDVXw@mail.gmail.com/. > I know it seems weird to intentionally repeat, but since the goal is > to nuke merge-recursive.c, I'm doing it as a temporary measure. That all makes sense, and is very helpful information to have. I'll keep it in mind as I continue to review this series. Thanks, Taylor
diff --git a/merge-ort.c b/merge-ort.c index 999a7c91c52..378ac495d09 100644 --- a/merge-ort.c +++ b/merge-ort.c @@ -721,6 +721,18 @@ static int handle_content_merge(struct merge_options *opt, /*** Function Grouping: functions related to directory rename detection ***/ +static void get_provisional_directory_renames(struct merge_options *opt, + unsigned side, + int *clean) +{ + die("Not yet implemented!"); +} + +static void handle_directory_level_conflicts(struct merge_options *opt) +{ + die("Not yet implemented!"); +} + /*** Function Grouping: functions related to regular rename detection ***/ static int process_renames(struct merge_options *opt, @@ -1086,13 +1098,24 @@ static int detect_and_process_renames(struct merge_options *opt, { struct diff_queue_struct combined; struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; - int s, clean = 1; + int need_dir_renames, s, clean = 1; memset(&combined, 0, sizeof(combined)); detect_regular_renames(opt, merge_base, side1, MERGE_SIDE1); detect_regular_renames(opt, merge_base, side2, MERGE_SIDE2); + need_dir_renames = + !opt->priv->call_depth && + (opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE || + opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT); + + if (need_dir_renames) { + for (s = MERGE_SIDE1; s <= MERGE_SIDE2; s++) + get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, s, &clean); + handle_directory_level_conflicts(opt); + } + ALLOC_GROW(combined.queue, renames->pairs[1].nr + renames->pairs[2].nr, combined.alloc);