Re: [RFC/PATCH 5/9] ref-filter: implement '--merged' and '--no-merged' options

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> +	if(filter->merge_commit) {

space after if.

> @@ -938,7 +991,13 @@ void ref_array_clear(struct ref_array *array)
>   */
>  int filter_refs(int (for_each_ref_fn)(each_ref_fn, void *), struct ref_filter_cbdata *data)
>  {
> -	return for_each_ref_fn(ref_filter_handler, data);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = for_each_ref_fn(ref_filter_handler, data);
> +	if (data->filter.merge_commit)
> +		do_merge_filter(data);

Reading this, I first wondered why you did not do the merge_filter as
part of ref_filter_handler. It seems weird to fill-in an array and then
re-filter it. I think it would make sense to add a few comments, like

/* Simple per-ref filtering */
ret = for_each_ref_fn(ref_filter_handler, data);

/* Filters that need revision walking */
if (data->filter.merge_commit)
...

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]