On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:18 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:09 PM Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Technically you would not need patch 1 in this series, as you could call > > remove_branch_state(void) as before that patch to do the same thing here. > > I guess that patch 1 is more of a drive by cleanup, then? > > Yes. > > > It looks a bit interesting as sequencer_remove_state actually > > takes no arguments and assumes the_repository, but I guess that is fine. > > Don't worry. My effort to kill the_index will make sequencer.c take > 'struct repository *' (its operations are so wide that passing just > struct index_state * does not make sense). Cool! I'll give that series a read, then! Thanks for killing the_index! > > I wondered if we need to have this patch for 'a' as well, and it looks like > > which does a sequencer_rollback, which is just some logic before > > attempting sequencer_remove_state. So I'd think remove_branch_state > > could be done in sequencer_remove_state as well? > > sequencer_rollback does not need this remove_branch_state() line > because it calls reset_for_rollback() which does this deletion. Patch > 1/1 kinda hints at that because it touches all remove_branch_state() > ;-) Gah! I am being slow.
