On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Also re-initializing rev_info fields to the same values already set in
>> init_revisions().

Oops, that should have been " _avoid_ re-initializing".

> I suspect that
> explicit initialization to revs.ignore_merges outself can be called
> belt-and-braces defensive programming to avoid getting surprised by
> future changes to what init_revisions() would do, so I do not have
> strong preference either way.

I suspected the same, but OTOH, if it was ever changed, one would have
to go through all call sites anyway. I checked the other calls to
init_revisions (48 of them, I think) and I found only 3 other places
where a field was re-initialized to the same value. In this case it
was done inconsistently even within the file. Seeing init_revisions()
followed by "revs.ignore_merges = 1;" in one place but not the other
can easily lead one to believe that the other place does not ignore

Do you want a reroll with updated commit messages (the missing "avoid"
above, the dropped "seems like" about the prefix in 1/2)? Since you
don't have a strong preference about the explicit initialization, I
assume I can leave those hunks in. I would clarify my reasoning,

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

Reply via email to