Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > And this is precisely the reason why the first time I sent the patch I > > did the restyling in the same go: by not touching the > > clueless/careless callers and instead bringing gitweb_check_feature to > > act in scalar context, it would automatically fix those broken usages, > > ... which is very bad for reviewability purposes. > > By explicitly fixing them before doing the "this will sweep all the > potential bugs under the rug", you can demonstrate a lot more clearly why > these changes are necessary. Well, I think now that it would be best to split this series into _two_ patches: first Junio's patch fixing (!) gitweb_check_feature() calls, second original v1 Guiseppe's renaming gitweb_check_feature() to gitweb_get_feature(), and adding gitweb_check_feature(), and using gitweb_get_feature() only where needed; optionally fixing "style". Pure rename IMVHO doesn't look that nice... -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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
