On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
>> +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> [...]
>> @@ -1077,27 +1100,15 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command
>> *commands,
> [...]
>> + if (shallow_update)
>> + assure_connectivity_checked(commands, si);
>
> Looking at this code alone, it seems like assure_connectivity_checked()
> is going to ensure that connectivity was checked, so that I can assume
> connectivity going forward. But the opposite is true --- it is a
> safety check that prints a warning and doesn't affect what I can
> assume.
I disagree on that. Combined with the next patch (s/error/die/) we can assume
that the the connectivity is there as if it is not, git is dead.
This is why I choose the word assure. Maybe check_assumption would be better?
>
> The factored-out function fails in what it is meant to do, which is to
> save the reader of execute_commands from having to look at the
> implementation of the parts they are not interested in.
>
> Would something like warn_if_skipped_connectivity_check() make sense?
The next patch would then change this to die_if_... ?
I'd be ok with that, but in your original email you would still have the last
die(...) in the execute_command function which I dislike.
So what about:
if (shallow_update)
(warn|die)_on_skipped_connectivity_check()
?
>
> Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
