Hey Matthieu,
On 16 February 2017 at 23:52, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
> Indeed, I misread the patch. The explanation could be a little bit more
> "tired-reviewer-proof" by not using a past tone, perhaps
>
> 1. setup_revision, which is changed to ...
Oh, okay! Sorry about the confusion!
Yes, I used
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
>> Siddharth Kannan writes:
>>
>>> handle_revision_opt() tries to recognize and handle the given argument. If
>>> an
>>> option was unknown to it, it used to add the option to unkv[(*unkc)++].
>>> This
>>> increment of unkc causes the variable
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Siddharth Kannan writes:
>
>> handle_revision_opt() tries to recognize and handle the given argument. If an
>> option was unknown to it, it used to add the option to unkv[(*unkc)++]. This
>> increment of unkc causes the variable in the caller to change.
>>
>> Teach handle
Siddharth Kannan writes:
> handle_revision_opt() tries to recognize and handle the given argument. If an
> option was unknown to it, it used to add the option to unkv[(*unkc)++]. This
> increment of unkc causes the variable in the caller to change.
>
> Teach handle_revision_opt to not update unk
handle_revision_opt() tries to recognize and handle the given argument. If an
option was unknown to it, it used to add the option to unkv[(*unkc)++]. This
increment of unkc causes the variable in the caller to change.
Teach handle_revision_opt to not update unknown arguments inside unkc anymore.
5 matches
Mail list logo