Re: [PATCH v2 27/34] sequencer (rebase -i): differentiate between comments and 'noop'
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-12-19 19:05:42
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
In the upcoming patch, we will support rebase -i's progress reporting. The progress skips comments but counts 'noop's. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <redacted> --- sequencer.c | 15 +++++++++------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
quoted hunk
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c index 1f314b2743..63f6f25ced 100644 --- a/sequencer.c +++ b/sequencer.c@@ -770,7 +770,9 @@ enum todo_command { TODO_EXEC, /* commands that do nothing but are counted for reporting progress */ TODO_NOOP, - TODO_DROP + TODO_DROP, + /* comments (not counted for reporting progress) */ + TODO_COMMENT }; static struct {
Makes sense. I would have done this immediately after introducing
NOOP if I were doing this series, if only because by having the
unchanging last element early in enum {} definition, we can avoid
having to deal with the "last element cannot have comma", but that
is not a big issue.
quoted hunk
@@ -785,12 +787,13 @@ static struct { { 's', "squash" }, { 'x', "exec" }, { 0, "noop" }, - { 'd', "drop" } + { 'd', "drop" }, + { 0, NULL } }; static const char *command_to_string(const enum todo_command command) { - if ((size_t)command < ARRAY_SIZE(todo_command_info)) + if (command < TODO_COMMENT) return todo_command_info[command].str; die("Unknown command: %d", command); }
The same comment as "instead of comparing with TODO_NOOP, you would want is_noop()" applies to three instances of comparing with TODO_COMMENT we can see in this patch, I think. "is_counted()" perhaps?