Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' >> usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been >> incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use >> parse_options., 2007-10-07). > > I think that we implement such incidental fixes only when we're touching > the relevant lines, but this change looks correct. That's fair. This fix is such low-hanging fruit that I don't think it deserves its patch, but if others agree, I'll separate it. > >> - int delete = 0, rename = 0, copy = 0, force = 0, list = 0; >> - int show_current = 0; >> - int reflog = 0, edit_description = 0; >> - int quiet = 0, unset_upstream = 0; >> + /* possible actions */ >> + int delete = 0, rename = 0, copy = 0, force = 0, list = 0, >> + unset_upstream = 0, show_current = 0, edit_description = 0; >> + int noncreate_actions = 0; >> + /* possible options */ >> + int reflog = 0, quiet = 0, icase = 0; > > [snip] > >> - if (!!delete + !!rename + !!copy + !!new_upstream + !!show_current + >> - list + edit_description + unset_upstream > 1) >> + noncreate_actions = !!delete + !!rename + !!copy + !!new_upstream + >> + !!show_current + !!list + !!edit_description + >> + !!unset_upstream; >> + if (noncreate_actions > 1) >> usage_with_options(builtin_branch_usage, options); > > Overall this change looks good, although if you're going to rearrange > the variable declarations (e.g. the positions of show_current, > edit_description, and unset_upstream have moved), you might as well make > them consistent with the noncreate_actions statement, I guess. Also > maybe move new_upstream closer. Yeah this is obviously inconsistent, thanks for the catch. * force isn't an action * new_upstream is an action * for QoL, all of the actions should be listed in the same order at both sites
