Re: [PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-27 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin writes: >> I suppose that if the condition is fulfilled then the previously >> obtained value will not be necessary. > > I have to be honest: this commit message (including the subject) left me > quite puzzled as to the intent of this patch. > >

Re: [PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-25 Thread Martin Werner
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 24 2017, Kevin Daudt jotted: > >> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:15:35PM +0400, Vadim Petrov wrote: >>> Thank you for your replay. >>> >>> > I have to be honest: this commit message (including the

Re: [PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-24 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Sun, Dec 24 2017, Kevin Daudt jotted: > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:15:35PM +0400, Vadim Petrov wrote: >> Thank you for your replay. >> >> > I have to be honest: this commit message (including the subject) left me >> > quite puzzled as to the intent of this patch. >> >> I still only learn

Re: [PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-24 Thread Kevin Daudt
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:15:35PM +0400, Vadim Petrov wrote: > Thank you for your replay. > > > I have to be honest: this commit message (including the subject) left me > > quite puzzled as to the intent of this patch. > > I still only learn English and correctly express my thoughts while

Re: [PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-24 Thread Vadim Petrov
Thank you for your replay. > I have to be honest: this commit message (including the subject) left me > quite puzzled as to the intent of this patch. I still only learn English and correctly express my thoughts while somewhat difficult. > If you also have a background story that motivated you

Re: [PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-23 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Vadim, thank you for your contribution! On Sun, 24 Dec 2017, Vadim Petrov wrote: > I suppose that if the condition is fulfilled then the previously > obtained value will not be necessary. I have to be honest: this commit message (including the subject) left me quite puzzled as to the intent

[PATCH] setup.c: move statement under condition

2017-12-23 Thread Vadim Petrov
I suppose that if the condition is fulfilled then the previously obtained value will not be necessary. Signed-off-by: Vadim Petrov --- setup.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/setup.c b/setup.c index 8cc34186c..1ce0189fa 100644 ---