From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:22:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] notes: extract logic into set_display_notes()
Message-ID: <95295e75-7d8d-bc6e-c41f-dd52c9826dfe@iee.email>
In-Reply-To: <20191209191924.GA24159@generichostname>

HI Denton

On 09/12/2019 19:19, Denton Liu wrote:
> the "lockstep" thing was what I was going for. That's why I ended
> up using one monolithic function instead of several smaller ones. That
> way, the caller can just blindly pass in values and then use the values
> returned to set its own state (i.e. how 4/5 does it). Also, it would
> ensure that future developers using this function won't forget to set
> the corresponding show_notes variable to whatever value is appropriate.
>
> The reason why we can't accept `revs` is because this series attempts to
> stop depending on `revs` for the notes configuration entirely. That way,
> we can call git_config() before repo_init_revisions() since we won't
> need to have `revs` initialised.
>
> I considered accepting an `int *` instead of using the return value to
> make the intent more explicit but I didn't do that because the return
> value seemed easier to deal with.
Does your explanation: "this series attempts to stop depending on `revs` 
for the notes configuration entirely." need adding adding to the commit 
message? I.e. the "abstract away" phrase probably doesn't carry enough 
information/context.p

Maybe pick out some of the explanations for the commit message for 
future readers?

Philip