Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -503,9 +562,11 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command *commands, const char *unpacker_erro
> return;
> }
>
> + check_aliased_updates(commands);
> +
> head_name = resolve_ref("HEAD", sha1, 0, NULL);
>
> - for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
> + for (cmd = commands; cmd && !cmd->skip_update; cmd = cmd->next)
> cmd->error_string = update(cmd);
> }
Do you really mean to have "skip-update" check as the loop termination
condition like this (i.e. "upon seeing any skip-update, abandon the rest
of the update queue"), or is this a typo of "skip this entry but keep
going, processing the rest" that should have been a separate "if" in the
body of the loop?
> @@ -545,6 +606,7 @@ static struct command *read_head_info(void)
> hashcpy(cmd->old_sha1, old_sha1);
> hashcpy(cmd->new_sha1, new_sha1);
> memcpy(cmd->ref_name, line + 82, len - 81);
> + cmd->skip_update = 0;
> cmd->error_string = NULL;
> cmd->next = NULL;
It would make sense to do xcalloc(nmemb, size) of one member of that
length to allocate cmd at this point, instead of adding yet another
assignment like this.
It also would help me a slight bit if you compared what has been queued
with what you sent to catch minor differences between my expectation from
this series and what you have (e.g. I'd like to keep this as a fix that is
back-mergeable to 'maint' and also I have already done some style fixes to
the test).
Thanks.
--
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