Re: [PATCH] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 26, 2021, 15:12 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BHgQGYLobmYvyj4u=KLePosoCq2Y_JY6aUJOQcP_PB1iw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <eda509dd-d2d5-0856-0c75-094d67257d54@iee.email>

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:27 AM Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote:

>
> minor nit on a code comment
>
> On 26/03/2021 07:16, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:

...

Show 15 quoted lines

> > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> > index 848204d3dc3f..2fe0e0eff7e6 100644
> > --- a/sequencer.c
> > +++ b/sequencer.c
> > @@ -1860,14 +1860,26 @@ static void record_in_rewritten(struct object_id *oid,
> >               flush_rewritten_pending();
> >  }
> >
> > +static int should_edit(struct replay_opts *opts) {
> > +     assert(opts->edit >= -1 && opts->edit <= 1);
> > +     if (opts->edit == -1)
> > +             /*
> > +              * Note the we only handle the case of non-conflicted
>
> This 'Note the we' doesn't parse for me.

Oops; should have been "Note that we". Thanks for pointing it out; I'll fix it up with any other feedback that comes in.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > +              * commits; continue_single_pick() handles the conflicted
> > +              * commits itself instead of calling this function.
> > +              */
> > +             return (opts->action == REPLAY_REVERT && isatty(0)) ? 1 : 0;
> > +     return opts->edit;
> > +}
> > +