Matthijs Kooijman <matth...@stdin.nl> writes:
>> Could you explain why you think it hides the real problem, and what
>> kind of future enhancement may break it?
> I think the differences is mostly in the locality of the fix. In my
> proposed patch, the no_pre_delete flag is never set on an interesting
> line because it is checked in the line before it. In your patch, it
> never happens because the control flow guarantees the "context" lines
> before each change must be uninteresting.
> The net effect is of course identical, but I'm arguing that depending on
> the control flow and some code a doze lines down is easier to break than
> depending on a previous line.
Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable 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