On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 12:11:47PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 02:59:42PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 02:40:58PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect there's a way to write this as a loop that would be more
> > > structured, but it would be a bigger refactor. Bonus points if it also
> > > get rid of the try_rename goto, too. ;)
> > >
> > > I'm OK punting on that, though.
> >
> > For fun, here's a version without any goto's in it, that should behave
> > the same. But it would be very easy to miss a case. So I don't know if
> > it is worth the regression risk, and I don't blame you if you delete
> > this message without looking carefully. ;)
> >
> > Diff is kind of hard to read, so you may want to apply (on top of your
> > patches) and just look at the post-image.
>
> Thanks. For now though I think I prefer to go with the simpler diff that
> uses goto, as it feels less risky close to v2.48. We can still refactor
> this in the next release cycle.
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>