From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:13:40 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] merge-recursive: Workaround unused variable warning
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVWd60Pe3-X2xj4mWhtiTf9VgydYJ7HKxsp+dd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vk4nn8soz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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 ;-).

That makes sense and sounds like a good idea to me.  I think we should
go with your patch, modulo possibly modifying the comment's wording.