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
