[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 2/3] merge-recursive: remove return value from get_files_dirs
From:       Stefan Beller <sbeller () google ! com>
Date:       2017-08-31 18:12:01
Message-ID: CAGZ79kacO12xkjt3nBEyyY9VBkdDu+uJ2AnzzEkMnovcO5bigw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Kevin Willford <kewillf@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:28:28PM -0600, Kevin Willford wrote:
>>
>> > The return value of the get_files_dirs call is never being used.
>> > Looking at the history of the file and it was originally only
>> > being used for debug output statements.  Also when
>> > read_tree_recursive return value is non zero it is changed to
>> > zero.  This leads me to believe that it doesn't matter if
>> > read_tree_recursive gets an error.
>>
>> Or that the function is buggy. :)
>
> That was one of my questions as well.  Should read_tree_recursive
> be propagating a -1 and merge_trees be checking for that and bail
> when the call to get_files_dirs return is < 0?  I made a commit with
> this change and ran the tests and they all still passed so either this
> return really doesn't matter or there are not sufficient tests covering
> it.
>
> I went with this change because it was not changing any of the
> current functionality and if we find a case where it matters that
> read_tree_recursive fails due to bad tree or something else we
> can address it then.
>
>>
>> I'm tempted to say that we should probably die() when
>> read_tree_recursive fails. This should only happen if we fail to parse
>> the tree, or if our callback (save_files_dirs here) returns failure, and
>> the latter looks like it never happens.
>>
>> > Since the debug output has been removed and the caller isn't
>> > checking the return value there is no reason to keep calulating
>> > and returning a value.
>>
>> Agreed, and I'm happy to see dead code go.
>>
>> Minor nit: s/calulating/calculating/ in your commit message.
>
> When will that spell checker for git messages be ready? ;)

Different workflows need different setups apparently.
(me, as a heavy user of git-gui, likes the builtin spell checker,
though I need to find a way to train it to accept git lingo, such
as "submodule", or "gitlink")

Maybe:
https://tarasalenin.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/configure-git-gui-spell-checker-on-windows/

If you do not use git-gui... you are at the merci of your $EDITOR
($GIT_EDITOR, or core.editor) to have spell checking.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]