Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Will also affect annotate
Is that a good thing? In any case, make it understandable without
the title line (i.e. make it a full sentence, ending with a full
stop).
> + if (progress) {
> + for (next = suspect->suspects; next != NULL;
> + next = next->next)
> + blamed_lines += next->num_lines;
> + display_progress(progress, blamed_lines);
> + }
Is this math and the placement of the code correct? It would
probably be more obvious if this hunk is in found_guilty_entry(),
which is already the dedicated function in which we report about a
group of lines whose ultimate origin has become clear.
> @@ -2830,11 +2851,11 @@ parse_done:
>
> read_mailmap(&mailmap, NULL);
>
> + assign_blame(&sb, opt);
> +
> if (!incremental)
> setup_pager();
>
> - assign_blame(&sb, opt);
> -
> free(final_commit_name);
>
> if (incremental)
Two comments.
* How does this interact with incremental or porcelain blame?
Shouldn't progress be turned off when these modes are in use?
* Shouldn't progress be turned off if the result comes very
quickly, using start_progress_delay()?
--
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