Tao Qingyun <taoqy@xxxxxxx> writes:
> ---
> builtin/branch.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
> index c396c41533..52aad0f602 100644
> --- a/builtin/branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
> @@ -222,10 +222,11 @@ static int delete_branches(int argc, const char **argv, int force, int kinds,
> if (!head_rev)
> die(_("Couldn't look up commit object for HEAD"));
> }
> - for (i = 0; i < argc; i++, strbuf_reset(&bname)) {
> + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
> char *target = NULL;
> int flags = 0;
>
> + strbuf_reset(&bname);
This is not "trivial" nor "style fix", though.
It is not "trivial" because it also changes the behaviour. Instead
of resetting the strbuf each time after the loop body runs, the new
code resets it before the loop body, even for the 0-th iteration
where the strbuf hasn't even been used at all. It is not a "style
fix" because we do not have a particular reason to avoid using the
comma operator to perform two simple expressions with side effects
inside a single expression.
> strbuf_branchname(&bname, argv[i], allowed_interpret);
> free(name);
> name = mkpathdup(fmt, bname.buf);
> @@ -716,8 +717,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> print_columns(&output, colopts, NULL);
> string_list_clear(&output, 0);
> return 0;
> - }
> - else if (edit_description) {
> + } else if (edit_description) {
This one is a style fix that is trivial. It does not change the
semantics a bit, and we do prefer "else if" to be on the same line
as the closing "}" of the earlier "if" that opened the matching "{".
> const char *branch_name;
> struct strbuf branch_ref = STRBUF_INIT;
