Sidhant Sharma <tigerkid...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> + if (argc > 1)
>>> + usage_msg_opt(_("Too many arguments."), receive_pack_usage,
>>> options);
>>> + if (argc == 0)
>>> + usage_msg_opt(_("You must specify a directory."),
>>> receive_pack_usage, options);
>> Before that, the loop was ensuring that service_dir was assigned once
>> and only once, and now you check that you have one non-option arg and
>> assign it unconditionally:
>>
>>> + service_dir = argv[0];
>> ... so isn't this "if" dead code:
>>
>>> if (!service_dir)
>>> - usage(receive_pack_usage);
>>> + usage_with_options(receive_pack_usage, options);
>> ?
>>
>>
> Yes, I just realized that is dead code (sorry). Removing the 'if'
> statement would correct that?
Yes.
> Also, is the unconditional assignment to service_dir correct in this
> case, or should some other test condition be added?
Since usage_msg_opt is NORETURN, it's OK: if you reach this point, you
know that argv[0] contains something.
> Another thing I'd like to ask is when I prepare the next patch, should
> it be sent as reply in this thread, or as a new thread?
No strict rule on that, but I usually use --in-reply-to on the root of
the thread for previous iteration. If you don't, include a link (e.g.
gmane) to the previous iteration in the cover-letter.
format-patch has a -v2 option to let you get [PATCH v2 ...]
automatically.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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
