Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > +{
>> > + clear_object_flags(SEEN | ADDED | SHOWN);
>> > +}
>>
>> But is this really the right API? After a particular program finishes
>> using the revision walker, wouldn't it want to clear both the set of these
>> standard flag bits used by the traversal machinery, as well as whatever
>> program specific bits it used to mark the objects with?
>
> Well if a program uses extra flags on objects it should clear the flags
> it set by using the clear_objects_flags() function itself. For example if
> the program wants to reuse those extra flags in a second revision walk
> it would not be possible if reset_revision_walk() would clear all flags.
OK.
>> These two hunk look like a *BUGFIX* to me (certainly it does not look like
>> this is an addition of any new feature).
>>
>> What bug does this fix, and how is the current submodule code broken
>> without this patch? Can you describe the problem in the log message, and
>> add a test to demonstrate the existing breakage?
>
> There is no breakage I know of. Its rather a cleanup which allows to
> call these functions multiple times. I did this to avoid surprises.
OK.
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