Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I saw this in Junio's email about series requiring review, so I took a > look despite missing v1. Stepping through each commit in my local copy > helped make sure that these changes were correct in their proper context. > >> The last two patches change the behavior slightly for error codepaths, and >> there's a question about whether we should show only the error messages that >> caused an early termination of the merge, or if we should also show any >> conflict messages for other paths that were handled before we hit the early >> termination. These patches made a decision but feel free to take those last >> two patches as more of an RFC. > > I also support this change in the final two patches. > > One thing I mentioned in an earlier reply was "why not use an > enum in this tri-state 'clean' variable?" and then I tried to > make just such a patch. ... > ... But I'll leave that as something to think about another time. It > does not change the merit of this series. I left a note about > another "&=" case that wasn't touched, but it's not wrong as-is. Thanks for having done a thorough review, including exploration of an alternative. Really appreciated.
