Re: [PATCH 0/3] Re: [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code

On 13.08.2014 01:57, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Stefan Beller wrote: In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree [...] The description is describing why the patch is *correct* (i.e., not going to introduce a bug), while what the reader wants to know is why the

Re: [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code

Stefan Beller stefanbel...@gmail.com writes: In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree if (current) { ... Within this block of code we can assume current to be non NULL, hence the code after the statement in line 1796: if (current)

[PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code

In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree if (current) { ... Within this block of code we can assume current to be non NULL, hence the code after the statement in line 1796: if (current) return ... cannot be reached.

Re: [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code

Stefan Beller stefanbel...@gmail.com writes: In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree if (current) { ... Within this block of code we can assume current to be non NULL, hence the code after the statement in line 1796: if (current)

[PATCH 0/3] Re: [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code

Stefan Beller wrote: In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree [...] The description is describing why the patch is *correct* (i.e., not going to introduce a bug), while what the reader wants to know is why the change is *desirable*. Is this about making the code

[PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code

In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree if (current) { ... Within this block of code we can assume current to be non NULL, hence the code after the statement in line 1796: if (current) return ... cannot be reached. The