Re: [PATCH v2 26/33] diff-merges: let new options enable diff without -p

> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:42 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:50 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> New options don't have any visible effect unless -p is either given or
>> >> implied, as unlike -c/-cc we don't imply -p with --diff-merges. To fix
>> >> this, this patch adds new functionality by letting new options enable
>> >> output of diffs for merge commits only.
>> >>
>> >> Add 'merges_need_diff' field and set it whenever diff output for merges is
>> >> enabled by any of the new options.
>> >>
>> >> Extend diff output logic accordingly, to output diffs for merges when
>> >> 'merges_need_diff' is set even when no -p has been provided.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  diff-merges.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>> >>  log-tree.c    | 13 +++++++++----
>> >>  revision.h    |  1 +
>> >>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/diff-merges.c b/diff-merges.c
>> >> index 725db2312074..ffe20d8daa4a 100644
>> >> --- a/diff-merges.c
>> >> +++ b/diff-merges.c
>> >> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ static void suppress(struct rev_info *revs)
>> >>         revs->dense_combined_merges = 0;
>> >>         revs->combined_all_paths = 0;
>> >>         revs->combined_imply_patch = 0;
>> >> +       revs->merges_need_diff = 0;
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >>  static void set_separate(struct rev_info *revs)
>> >> @@ -51,9 +52,11 @@ static void set_dense_combined(struct rev_info *revs)
>> >>
>> >>  static void set_diff_merges(struct rev_info *revs, const char *optarg)
>> >>  {
>> >
>> >> +       if (!strcmp(optarg, "off") || !strcmp(optarg, "none")) {
>> >> +               suppress(revs);
>> >> +               return;
>> >> +       }
>> >>         if (0) ;
>> >> -       else if (!strcmp(optarg, "off")   || !strcmp(optarg, "none"))
>> >> -               suppress(revs);
>> >
>> > The "if (0) ;" is still really weird.
>>
>> An idiom (see my previous answer). I'm fine getting rid of it if you
>> guys find it weird (that I'm not).
>
> I've never seen this idiom, and we apparently have no uses of it in
> the code.  If it were near any code I was editing, I think I'd rip it
> out as a preliminary cleanup patch...but maybe others have other
> opinions.