On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 12:07:57PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 10 2021, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > - if (ctx->m && midx_contains_pack(ctx->m, file_name))
> > - return;
> > + if (ctx->m) {
> > + if (midx_contains_pack(ctx->m, file_name))
> > + return;
> > + } else if (ctx->to_include) {
> > + if (!string_list_has_string(ctx->to_include, file_name))
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> I think this is equivalent to:
>
> if (ctx->m && midx_contains_pack(ctx->m, file_name))
> return;
> else if (!ctx->m && string_list_has_string(...))
> return;
They are equivalent, but it took me a minute to convince myself ;). They
are only equivalent because *either* ctx->m or ctx->to_include is
non-NULL.
So it wouldn't be the case that ctx->m being set and the subsequent
midx_contains_pack() call returning zero would cause us to check the
to_include list, because to_include will be NULL if ctx->m isn't.
Anyway, that makes them equivalent, so I'm happy to clean it up and
decrease the nested-ness.
> > +int write_midx_file_only(const char *object_dir, struct string_list *packs_to_include, const char *preferred_pack_name, unsigned flags);
>
> Let's also line-wrap header changes like in the *.c file.
Sure.
Thanks,
Taylor
