Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Should I have added Approved by: in the log message?
For such a trivial change? Nah.
- Julian
Den fre 5 feb. 2021 kl 11:35 skrev Julian Foad :
> +1.
>
r1886227, kept the third and fourth lines of the comment unchanged since
the suggested change was >80 chars.
Should I have added Approved by: in the log message?
/Daniel Sahlberg
Den fre 5 feb. 2021 kl 11:19 skrev Julian Foad :
> (Ugh, sorry for the previous blank reply.)
>
> Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> > [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it
> easier to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
> >
> > - /* Iterate over e
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Like this?
> /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge.
>* Iterate in a parent-to-child order so that inherited mergeinfo is
> propagated
>* consistently from each parent path to its children. (Issue #4862) */
+1.
- Julian
(Ugh, sorry for the previous blank reply.)
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it easier
> to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
>
> - /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge. */
> -
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it easier
> to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
>
> - /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge. */
> - /* Iterate over the paths in a parent-to-c
Hi,
When going through the code for 1.14.1, I looked at r1880192. Is it
intentional to have both comments?
When I'm reading the comment and trying to understand the code I'm half
expecting to have two different (possibly nested) loops.
/* Iterate over each path with explicit merge
7 matches
Mail list logo
