On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 10:10:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> +int fetch_pack_fsck_objects(void)
> >> +{
> >> + fetch_pack_setup();
> >> +
> >> + return fetch_fsck_objects >= 0
> >> + ? fetch_fsck_objects
> >> + : transfer_fsck_objects >= 0
> >> + ? transfer_fsck_objects
> >> + : 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > ... can we maybe rewrite it to something more customary here? The
> > following is way easier to read, at least for me.
> >
> > int fetch_pack_fsck_objects(void)
> > {
> > fetch_pack_setup();
> > if (fetch_fsck_objects >= 0 ||
> > transfer_fsck_objects >= 0)
> > return 1;
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> But do they mean the same thing? In a repository where
>
> [fetch] fsckobjects = no
>
> is set, no matter what transfer.fsckobjects says (or left unspecified),
> we want to return "no, we are not doing fsck".
Oh, of course they don't. This here would be a faithful conversion:
int fetch_pack_fsck_objects(void)
{
fetch_pack_setup();
if (fetch_fsck_objects >= 0)
return fetch_fsck_objects;
if (transfer_fsck_objects >= 0)
return transfer_fsck_objects;
return 0;
}
Still easier to read in my opinion.
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
