[re-sending this to the list since it's relevant, and I somehow
accidentally dropped the list]
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Ray Zhang <zhanglei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By adding this option which defaults to true, we can use the
>> corresponding --no-checkout to make some customizations before
>> the checkout, like sparse checkout, etc.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ray Zhang <zhanglei...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since last version of this patch[v3]:
>> Documentation/git-worktree.txt: HEAD --> `<branch>`
>> t/t2025-worktree-add.sh: fix style
>
> Thanks, this version addresses the minor issues raised with the previous one.
>
> One observation below...
>
>> diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c
>> @@ -284,11 +285,13 @@ static int add_worktree(const char *path, const char
>> *refname,
>> if (ret)
>> goto done;
>>
>> - cp.argv = NULL;
>> - argv_array_clear(&cp.args);
>> - argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "reset", "--hard", NULL);
>> - cp.env = child_env.argv;
>> - ret = run_command(&cp);
>> + if (opts->checkout) {
>> + cp.argv = NULL;
>> + argv_array_clear(&cp.args);
>> + argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "reset", "--hard", NULL);
>> + cp.env = child_env.argv;
>> + ret = run_command(&cp);
>> + }
>> if (!ret) {
>> is_junk = 0;
>> free(junk_work_tree);
>
> In the no-checkout case, this code effectively becomes:
>
> ret = run_command("update-ref"/"symbolic-ref");
> if (ret)
> goto done;
> ...
> if (!ret)
> ...free stuff...
> done:
> ...
>
> 'ret' does not change value, so it's a bit odd to have an 'if (ret)'
> conditional immediately followed by an 'if (!ret)'.
>
> It might be cleaner to re-organize the code slightly so that 'if
> (ret)' is used after all run_command()s, and then outdent the "...free
> stuff..." code, like this:
>
> ret = run_command(...);
> if (ret)
> goto done;
> if (checkout) {
> ret = run_command(...)
> if (ret)
> goto done;
> }
> ...free stuff...
> done:
> ...
>
> This is a very minor issue, and I'm not even convinced that the code
> is any clearer this way, so it's not something which should hold up
> this patch. If you try it and find it nicer, then it could be done as
> a follow-on cleanup patch (or a preparatory cleanup patch if you want
> to re-roll, but that's probably not necessary).
>
> I should have mentioned this earlier since I specifically looked for
> it with a previous version of the patch, but unfortunately didn't
> quite spot it. This time I did spot it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
