Re: [PATCH 1/2] merge-recursive: Workaround unused variable warning

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2010, 22:25 UTC
Message-ID: <7vk4nn8soz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9mho7Pm5m=3dEbtMrH1r81Lc480i_z2_aHCxs@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> So, I'd say it is more about programming errors, in particular ones
> where people modify the code to make process_entry() leave more cases
> unprocessed than what is currently possible without also making the
> necessary modifications to process_df_entry().

Yeah.  But they do not need to touch process_df_entry().

I actually was hoping that my weatherbaloon patch will illustrate that a new special case these people may make to process_entry() to leave other cases unprocessed do _NOT_ have to be handled by process_df_entry().

The "if" statement in process_df_entry() would check if the entry is something the function is ready to resolve, and otherwise punts. A new exception they add to process_entry() can introduce a separate phase (just like process_df_entry() is not done in parallel with other kinds of entries inside the process_entry() but as a separate post-processing phase) between the loop that calls process_df_entry() and the loop that checks if there is a remaining entry. And it probably should, as such a new exception may not have anything to do with "df", and adding such a logic to process_df_entry() would be wrong ;-).