Re: [PATCH 2/2] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option

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

 



On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:10:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Guilty as charged.  I do agree that this is over-engineered.
> 
> Let's discard 1/2 and amend 2/2 with this incremental.

Looks good (though I really am OK the other way if people feel
strongly).

> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index 2a32b5f..337c35a 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -656,8 +656,7 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(const struct checkout_opts *opts,
>  			   REF_NODEREF, UPDATE_REFS_DIE_ON_ERR);
>  		if (!opts->quiet) {
>  			if (old->path &&
> -			    (advice_detached_head == 1 ||
> -			     (advice_detached_head == -1 && !opts->force_detach)))
> +			    advice_detached_head == 1 && !opts->force_detach)

Maybe s/== 1//?

That's more idiomatic, though maybe you were future-proofing in case we
turn it into a tri-state later. :)

-Peff
--
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]