Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年1月25日周二 07:32写道：
>
> > + /*
> > + * If there is no command ready to run, should return directly to destroy
> > + * temporary data in the quarantine area.
> > + */
> > + for (cmd = commands; cmd && cmd->error_string; cmd = cmd->next);
>
> Write the empty body of the loop like this:
>
> for (...)
> ; /* nothing */
>
> to make it stand out.
>
Thanks for the suggestion, this is more readable.
> > + if (!cmd)
> > + return;
> > +
>
> > -mk_empty () {
> > +mk_empty() {
> > repo_name="$1"
> > rm -fr "$repo_name" &&
> > - mkdir "$repo_name" &&
> > - (
> > - cd "$repo_name" &&
> > - git init &&
> > - git config receive.denyCurrentBranch warn &&
> > - mv .git/hooks .git/hooks-disabled
> > - )
> > + mkdir "$repo_name" &&
> > + (
> > + cd "$repo_name" &&
> > + git init &&
> > + git config receive.denyCurrentBranch warn &&
> > + mv .git/hooks .git/hooks-disabled
> > + )
> > }
>
> Documentation/CodingGuidelines. As far as I can tell, the above
> does not change anything the function does, and the only change in
> the patch is to violate the style guide badly. Why?
Sorry. I'll roll back these formatting issues. Jiang Xin reminded me to
look at this document, but I did miss an important part. At the same
time, I used a wrong range-diff command in the review I sent internally
earlier, which made my changes look like "mk_empty() {"
to "mk_empty () {". So this problem was not detected in time.
