2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:22
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
There are two very similar blocks of code that recognize options for the "recursive" merge strategy. Unify them. No functional change intended.
It makes sense, but I wonder why you chose to do "if (fun() <= 0) error" instead of usual "if (fun() < 0) error"...
From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:23
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
There are two very similar blocks of code that recognize options for the "recursive" merge strategy. Unify them. No functional change intended.It makes sense, but I wonder why you chose to do "if (fun() <= 0) error" instead of usual "if (fun() < 0) error"...
No good reason (an attempt to vaguely imitate the interface of handle_revision_opt() from revision.c). Since both callers die for an unrecognized option, returning 0 for success and -1 for failure would indeed be simpler. I'll try to find time to reroll the series (including --patience) on top of jn/merge-renormalize tomorrow. Probably --ignore-space-change et al are safe, too, though some test cases would be nice.