Re: [PATCH 2/3] unpack-trees: fix path search bug in verify_absent

Hi,

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Clemens Buchacher wrote:

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:59:47PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

This explanation makes sense.  However, this:

quoted

@@ -289,7 +289,8 @@ static int unpack_nondirectories(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmas
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int unpack_callback(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmask, struct name_entry *names, struct traverse_info *info)
+static int unpack_callback(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmask,
+		struct name_entry *names, struct traverse_info *info)
 {
 	struct cache_entry *src[5] = { NULL, };
 	struct unpack_trees_options *o = info->data;

... is distracting during review, and this:

quoted

@@ -517,22 +518,22 @@ static int verify_clean_subdirectory(struct cache_entry *ce, const char *action,
 	namelen = strlen(ce->name);
 	pos = index_name_pos(o->src_index, ce->name, namelen);
 	if (0 <= pos)
-		return cnt; /* we have it as nondirectory */
+		return 0; /* we have it as nondirectory */
 	pos = -pos - 1;
 	for (i = pos; i < o->src_index->cache_nr; i++) {

... is not accounted for in the commit message.  Intended or not, that is 
the question.

Those are trivial readability improvements in the context of the patch.

They are not trivial enough for me not to be puzzled.  Reason enough to 
explain in the commit message?

Ciao,
Dscho