Re: [PATCH][GSOC] Selection of the verbose message is replaced with generated message in install_branch_config()
- From
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
- Date
- Mar 21, 2014, 21:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <532CB315.50607@alum.mit.edu>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cSYieZRA-kx0PUnrLjG5E6LYi_qOFqnZiE09wqeCvN3oA@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/21/2014 10:33 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> On 03/21/2014 06:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Assert() often becomes no-op in production build. I think this may >>> be an indication that "table-driven" may not be as good an approach >>> as many candidates thought. The microproject suggestion asks them >>> to think _if_ that makes sense, and it is perfectly fine for them if >>> they answer "no, it introduces more problems than it solves". >> >> My expectation when I invented that microproject was that converting the >> code to be table-driven would be judged *not* to be an improvement. I >> was hoping that a student would say "the 'if' statement is OK, but let's >> delete this ridiculous unreachable else branch". Possibly they would >> convert the "if" chain into nested "if"s, which I think would allow some >> code consolidation in one of the branches. >> >> But not a single student agreed with me, so I must be in a minority of >> one (which, unfortunately, is the definition of lunacy). > > Adam NoLastName did stick with the 'if' statements and removed the > unreachable branch [1], although he didn't say if he had considered > the table-driven approach and discarded it. > > [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/243704
Thanks for correcting my oversight.
So...there's still hope for my sanity after all :-) Adam must have tasted from the tree of wisdom :-)
Michael
-- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/