Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
>>
>> + if (!no_edit) {
>
> This is unrelated to the rest of the patch, but I do think double
> negations are horrible, so I thoink we should probably make the "no_edit"
> flag change meaning, and call it "run_editor" or something.
> ...
> So I wonder if we should perhaps:
>
> (a) Only add these messages at all when we do *not* do CLEANUP_ALL
> ...
> (b) Add a a new line to replace he "will not be included" message, ie
> ...
> I personally would prefer (a) - since anybody who then explicitly uses
> --cleanup={space|none} would presumably already know what he is doing.
>
> But this is not a huge deal. Regardless, the patch looks ok, so you can
> add a "Acked-by:" from me.
I was composing essentially the same message, except my
preference was (as you can guess by the fact that I hinted the
additional instruction) (b), but I agree that (a) is better at
least for now because the user has to ask for verbatim every
time (i.e. there is no config).
By the way, the "if (!no_edit)" conditional itself you quoted
above as the first thing in your message is not needed at all.
If no_edit is set, the function already has returned and we
would not reach that point.
So a third round?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
