Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> As an abstraction, it may be better to make the caller pass a >> boolean "is this for merge?" and keep the knowledge of what exact >> string is used for merge_status_marker to this function, instead of >> letting the caller passing it as a parameter in the string form. >> After all, we never allow anything other than an empty string or a >> fixed "not-for-merge" string in that place in the file format. >> [Nit #2] > > I think it's even nicer to just pass in `rm->fetch_head_status` > directly, which allows us to move below switch into `append_fetch_head`. OK. That may even be better. Thanks.
