On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:57 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> > @@ -598,7 +599,8 @@ static int grep_tree(struct grep_opt *opt, const struct pathspec *pathspec,
> >> > free(data);
> >> > } else if (recurse_submodules && S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode)) {
> >> > hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid,
> >> > - base->buf, base->buf + tn_len);
> >> > + base->buf, base->buf + tn_len,
> >> > + 1); /* ignored */
> >>
> >> The trailing comment is misleading. In the context of reviewing
> >> this patch, we can probably tell it applies only to that "1", but
> >> if you read only the postimage, the "ignored" comment looks as if
> >> the call itself is somehow ignored by somebody unspecified. It is
> >> not clear at all that it is only about the final parameter.
> >>
> >> If you must...
> >>
> >> hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid,
> >> base->buf, base->buf + tn_len,
> >> 1 /* ignored */);
> >
> > Yeah, I suggested adding an "/* ignored */" comment, but I was indeed
> > thinking about something like this.
> >
> >> ... is a reasonable way to write it.
>
> Thanks. In this case, I am not sure if the comment here really
> helps. If anything, shouldn't there be a comment near the top of
> grep_submodule() that says 'cached bit is meaningful only when you
> feed an empty oid, aka "not grepping inside a tree object"'?
Right, it makes sense. I'll add that.
