Tao Klerks <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> The logic sounds fairly straight-forward.
>
> I didn't understand here whether you were confirming that the change
> seems to make sense (yay!), or commenting that the extra comment block
> is redundant, stating something obvious, and should better be removed.
> Could you confirm please?
I meant the former when I wrote it.
But now you made me re-read the patch, I am becoming slightly
sympathetic to the "do we even need to comment?" interpretation, too
;-)
The question is if the comment to these two statements is redundant.
if (!dir->untracked->root) {
/*
* If we've had to initialize the root, then what we had was an
* empty uninitialized untracked cache structure. We will be
* populating it now, so we should trigger an index write.
*/
FLEX_ALLOC_STR(dir->untracked->root, name, "");
istate->cache_changed |= UNTRACKED_CHANGED;
}
I can be pursuaded either way.
