Hi,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:27 AM Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote:
>
> minor nit on a code comment
>
> On 26/03/2021 07:16, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
...
> > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> > index 848204d3dc3f..2fe0e0eff7e6 100644
> > --- a/sequencer.c
> > +++ b/sequencer.c
> > @@ -1860,14 +1860,26 @@ static void record_in_rewritten(struct object_id *oid,
> > flush_rewritten_pending();
> > }
> >
> > +static int should_edit(struct replay_opts *opts) {
> > + assert(opts->edit >= -1 && opts->edit <= 1);
> > + if (opts->edit == -1)
> > + /*
> > + * Note the we only handle the case of non-conflicted
>
> This 'Note the we' doesn't parse for me.
Oops; should have been "Note that we". Thanks for pointing it out;
I'll fix it up with any other feedback that comes in.
> > + * commits; continue_single_pick() handles the conflicted
> > + * commits itself instead of calling this function.
> > + */
> > + return (opts->action == REPLAY_REVERT && isatty(0)) ? 1 : 0;
> > + return opts->edit;
> > +}
> > +
