Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> 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 <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de>
> ---
> sequencer.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 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.
> @@ -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?
