On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:25 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sangeeta NB <sangunb09@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> I found this change a "noise": > > > > Oh okay, Again sorry for the misunderstanding. > > > >> > >> strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "status", "--porcelain=2", NULL); > >> if (ignore_untracked) > >> - strvec_push(&cp.args, "-uno"); > >> + strvec_push (&cp.args, "-uno"); > >> > >> If it were going the other direction, "we fix coding style violation > >> while at it" may be a good justification to do so, but this > >> particular change (1) is not neeeded for the purpose of this patch, > >> and (2) is making the code worse by deviating from the coding > >> guideline. Please drop it. > >> > > This part of the change was introduced because we had a failing test > > here[3]. There was some problem it getting both the flags propagated > > through ... > > Are you talking about the new "else" clause added to the "if" > statement we see above? I am not saying it is a "noise". > > But look at what you did to the existing call to strvec_push() to > add "-uno" shown above in the patch, i.e. the addition of space > before the parenthesis. We cannot justify that change, can we? > That's noise as far as I can see. Oh okay. Now I understand. Ya, that doesn't make sense. I thought that Eric above suggested adding it but looking at it again, Eric was saying to drop the space in the else statement below and I misunderstood that to this. I am really very sorry about this. Would change it in the next patch. Thanks again.
