On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 09:11 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Matt McCutchen <m...@mattmccutchen.net> writes: > > > We're preparing to reuse this code in transport.c for "git fetch". > > > > While I'm here, internationalize the existing error message. > > --- > > Sounds good. Please just say it is OK for me to forge your sign-off > ;-)
Oops. Given the other issue below, I'll just regenerate the patch series. > > diff --git a/fetch-pack.h b/fetch-pack.h > > index c912e3d..fd4d80e 100644 > > --- a/fetch-pack.h > > +++ b/fetch-pack.h > > @@ -45,4 +45,13 @@ struct ref *fetch_pack(struct fetch_pack_args > > *args, > > struct sha1_array *shallow, > > char **pack_lockfile); > > > > +/* > > + * Print an appropriate error message for each sought ref that > > wasn't > > + * matched. Return 0 if all sought refs were matched, otherwise > > 1. > > + * > > + * The type of "sought" should be "const struct ref *const *" but > > for > > + * http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5055655/double-pointer-const > > -correctness-warnings-in-c . > > + */ > > This is an unfinished sentence, but I wonder if we even need to have > it here? I'd be surprised if this function was unique in the > codebase that takes an array pointer whose type is looser than > necessary because of well-known language rules. You're probably right. I'm in the habit of documenting things that were unknown to me, but I'll take your word for what's well-known to the average git developer. I'll remove the remark. Matt
