From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:14:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 0/7] Expose submodule parallelism to the user
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZwgBJQ2bkvKSuT+ULiSPL9x5WTcwVJG0FATNv-D_-AhQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZZRENjVhfrhSfPmSNNQ_qrwpzWk=pocQ4GY6kBos1r6Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> Unless you count "I want to write differently from what was
>> suggested" is a desirable thing to do, I do not see a point in
>> favouring the above that uses an extra variable and skip_prefix()
>> over what I gave you as "how about" patch.  But whatever.
>
> The skip_prefix was there before, so it stuck there.
> Also it seems a bit more high level to me hence easier to read,
> (though I am biased). I'll use your suggestion.

and it doesn't crash when passing in value == NULL.
(We don't do that currently, just a side observation)