On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:22:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > +   /*
> > +    * Optimize the performance of checkout when the current and
> > +    * new branch have the same OID and avoid the trivial merge.
> > +    * For example, a "git checkout -b foo" just needs to create
> > +    * the new ref and report the stats.
> > +    */
> > +   if (!old.commit || !new->commit
> > +           || oidcmp(&old.commit->object.oid, &new->commit->object.oid)
> > +           || !opts->new_branch || opts->new_branch_force || 
> > opts->new_orphan_branch
> > +           || opts->patch_mode || opts->merge || opts->force || 
> > opts->force_detach
> > +           || opts->writeout_stage || !opts->overwrite_ignore
> > +           || opts->ignore_skipworktree || opts->ignore_other_worktrees
> > +           || opts->new_branch_log || opts->branch_exists || opts->prefix
> > +           || opts->source_tree) {
> 
> ... this is a maintenance nightmare in that any new option we will
> add later will need to consider what this "optimization" is trying
> (not) to skip.  The first two lines (i.e. we need a real checkout if
> we cannot positively say that old and new commits are the same
> object) are clear, but no explanation was given for all the other
> random conditions this if condition checks.  What if opts->something
> was not listed (or "listed" for that matter) in the list above--it
> is totally unclear if it was missed by mistake (or "added by
> mistake") or deliberately excluded (or "deliberately added").
> 
> For example, why is opts->prefix there?  If
> 
>       git checkout -b new-branch HEAD
> 
> should be able to omit the two-way merge, shouldn't
> 
>       cd t && git checkout -b new-branch HEAD
> 
> also be able to?

I was just writing another reply, but I think our complaints may have
dovetailed.

My issue is that the condition above is an unreadable mass.  It would be
really nice to pull it out into a helper function, and then all of the
items could be split out and commented independently, like:

  static int needs_working_tree_merge(const struct checkout_opts *opts,
                                      const struct branch_info *old,
                                      const struct branch_info *new)
  {
        /*
         * We must do the merge if we are actually moving to a new
         * commit.
         */
        if (!old->commit || !new->commit ||
            oidcmp(&old.commit->object.oid, &new->commit->object.oid))
                return 1;

        /* Option "foo" is not compatible because of... */
        if (opts->foo)
                return 1;

        ... etc ...
  }

That still leaves your "what if opts->something is not listed" question
open, but at least it makes it easier to comment on it in the code.

-Peff

PS I didn't think hard on whether the conditions above make _sense_. My
   first goal would be to get more communication about them individually,
   and then we can evaluate them.

Reply via email to