On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I actually was hoping that my weatherbaloon patch will illustrate that a > new special case these people may make to process_entry() to leave other > cases unprocessed do _NOT_ have to be handled by process_df_entry(). > > The "if" statement in process_df_entry() would check if the entry is > something the function is ready to resolve, and otherwise punts. A new > exception they add to process_entry() can introduce a separate phase (just > like process_df_entry() is not done in parallel with other kinds of > entries inside the process_entry() but as a separate post-processing > phase) between the loop that calls process_df_entry() and the loop that > checks if there is a remaining entry. And it probably should, as such a > new exception may not have anything to do with "df", and adding such a > logic to process_df_entry() would be wrong ;-). That makes sense and sounds like a good idea to me. I think we should go with your patch, modulo possibly modifying the comment's wording. -- 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