On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:59:29AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static void free_submodules_sha1s(struct string_list *submodules)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + for (i = 0; i < submodules->nr; i++) {
> > + struct string_list_item *item = &submodules->items[i];
>
> You do not seem to make use of `i` explicitely, so
> for_each_string_list_item might be more readable here?
Will change.
> > @@ -603,12 +645,23 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
> > die("revision walk setup failed");
> >
> > while ((commit = get_revision(&rev)) != NULL)
> > - find_unpushed_submodule_commits(commit, needs_pushing);
> > + find_unpushed_submodule_commits(commit, &submodules);
> >
> > reset_revision_walk();
> > free(sha1_copy);
> > strbuf_release(&remotes_arg);
> >
> > + for (i = 0; i < submodules.nr; i++) {
> > + struct string_list_item *item = &submodules.items[i];
>
> You do not seem to make use of `i` explicitely, so
> for_each_string_list_item might be more readable here?
As above.
Cheers Heiko