Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] wt-status: tolerate dangling marks

> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
> 
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If ^{upstream} or ^{push} (or equivalent) is requested, and the
> > +	 * branch in question does not have such a reference, return -1 instead
> > +	 * of die()-ing.
> > +	 */
> > +	unsigned nonfatal_dangling_mark : 1;
> 
> Micronit; I would have avoided "or equivalent" as the point of
> parenthetical comment was not to say these two modifiers upstream
> and push (and other forms that spell differently but invokes exactly
> one of these two features) are special, but to say that these two
> are merely examples, and any other ^{modifiers} we have or we will
> add in the future would honor this bit.  Perhaps "(and the like)"?

> For example, what is the reasoning behind making dwim_ref() unable
> to ask the "do so gently" variant, while allowing repo_dwim_ref()
> to?
> 
> I am NOT necessarily saying these two functions MUST be able to
> access the same set of features and the only difference between them
> MUST be kept to the current "repo_* variant can work on an arbitrary
> repository, while the variant without repo_* would work on the
> primary repository only".  As long as there is a good reason to make
> their power diverge, it is OK---I just do not see why and I'd like
> to know.