Bo Yang wrote:
> - if (diff_tree_sha1(t1->object.sha1, t2->object.sha1, "",
> - &revs->pruning) < 0)
> - return REV_TREE_DIFFERENT;
> + diff_tree_sha1(t1->object.sha1, t2->object.sha1, "", &revs->pruning);
Ack on the patch contents (though we could also make the function
'void' to reduce further confusion), but I'd word the commit message
differently:
> Make rev_compare_tree less confusing.
>
> diff_tree_sha1 always return 0, so comparing the return value
> of it make no sense. Just delete the comparison to make code
> reader clear.
Something like
rev_compare_tree: do not check return value of diff_tree_sha1
diff_tree_sha1() unconditionally inherits its return value from
diff_tree(), which always returns 0. Hence, pretending that its
return value carries any information about the tree difference is
extremely misleading.
The point of the call is in the side effects on revs->pruning, so
simply drop the dead 'return'.
Interestingly enough, this call survived with slight changes here and
there from all the way back in cf48454 (Teach git-rev-list to follow
just a specified set of files, 2005-10-20), where it was added in
rev-list.c. Even back then diff_tree() would always return 0.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html