[Libguestfs] [PATCH 0/3] New API: find_inode

[Pino Toscano]

On Thursday, 25 August 2016 16:05:47 CEST NoxDaFox wrote:
> 2016-08-25 14:09 GMT+03:00 Pino Toscano <ptoscano at redhat.com>:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 23:59:53 CEST Matteo Cafasso wrote:
> > > The find_inode API allows the User to search all the entries referring
> > > to a given inode and returns a tsk_dirent structure for each of them.
> > >
> > > As I didn't want to change unrelated code, there is a little bit
> > > of code duplication at the moment. Plan is to refactor the logic
> > > in a dedicated set of patches.
> >
> > The general idea looks ok, but I'd rather see the duplication dealt
> > with sooner than later.
> >
> In the previous submissions, non related changes were rejected therefore I
> thought that was the custom.

I don't see how the two cases are the same: what was "rejected" was a
single patch contaning both additions documented in the commit message,
and unrelated changes such as formatting fixes. I remember to have said
that it's a no-go as *single* patch, but they can be sent (and
integrated) as different commits.

In this case, refactoring and de-duplication of code should be done in
different commits as well.

> Moreover I'll add another API find_block (block_number --> tsk_dirents
> referring to it) and I think is easier to refactor the code once all the
> use cases are in place as the picture gets more clear.

More reasons to refactor *before*: since you already planned more APIs,
it's easier to just refactor one in advance with all the common code
needed, and use it later. Also, it eases a lot the review of the
patches, since it will be less code added.

-- 
Pino Toscano
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/attachments/20160825/e8c714ad/attachment.sig>