Meet Soni <meetsoni3017@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 14:30, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Meet Soni <meetsoni3017@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > diff --git a/remote.h b/remote.h >> > index bda10dd5c8..66ee53411d 100644 >> > --- a/remote.h >> > +++ b/remote.h >> > @@ -261,11 +261,7 @@ int resolve_remote_symref(struct ref *ref, struct ref *list); >> > */ >> > struct ref *ref_remove_duplicates(struct ref *ref_map); >> > >> > -/* >> > - * Check whether a name matches any negative refspec in rs. Returns 1 if the >> > - * name matches at least one negative refspec, and 0 otherwise. >> > - */ >> > -int omit_name_by_refspec(const char *name, struct refspec *rs); >> > +int refname_matches_negative_refspec_item(const char *refname, struct refspec *rs); >> > >> >> Nit: The first sentence is now duplicated by the function name as >> mentioned in the commit message. But aren't we loosing information by >> removing the second sentence? >> > Correct. I considered keeping the second sentence for clarity, but that other > function signatures in the codebase don’t include comments solely describing > return values. To maintain consistency with the existing style, I > opted to remove > it. Let me know if you think an alternative approach would be better! I think its okay as-is for now :) >> > /* >> > * Remove all entries in the input list which match any negative refspec in >> > -- >> > 2.34.1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
