Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'd have probably called this "display_name", but then I suppose it
> suffers the same issue Junio mentioned previously about it sounding
> like a boolean. Anyhow, as long as Junio is happy with it, that's what
> matters.
No ;-) I am just trying to help people come up with patches in a
better shape. Somehow "display name" does not bother me as much as
"report name" did. name_to_report may be a mouthful, but it conveys
what it is clearly, and I think it is good enough.
>
> This version of the patch is nicely improved. One nit below.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Santiago Torres <santiago@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c
>> @@ -80,6 +83,8 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> {
>> int i = 1, verbose = 0, had_error = 0;
>> unsigned flags = 0;
>> + unsigned char sha1[20];
>> + const char *name;
>
> Mentioned previously[1]: These two declarations could be moved inside
> the while-loop scope (below).
>
> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291813
Yup.
>
>> const struct option verify_tag_options[] = {
>> OPT__VERBOSE(&verbose, N_("print tag contents")),
>> OPT_BIT(0, "raw", &flags, N_("print raw gpg status output"), GPG_VERIFY_RAW),
>> @@ -96,8 +101,12 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> if (verbose)
>> flags |= GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE;
>>
>> - while (i < argc)
>> - if (verify_tag(argv[i++], flags))
>> + while (i < argc) {
>> + name = argv[i++];
>> + if (get_sha1(name, sha1))
>> + had_error = !!error("tag '%s' not found.", name);
>> + else if (verify_tag(sha1, name, flags))
>> had_error = 1;
>> + }
>> return had_error;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.8.0
--
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