From: Felipe Contreras Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:23:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001601ce5c5d$89974830$9cc5d890$@schmitz-digital.de> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Joachim Schmitz wrote: >> From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contreras@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:52 PM >> To: Joachim Schmitz >> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Joachim Schmitz >> wrote: >> > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> >>> It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it >> >>> is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin". >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent >> >> of the other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different >> >> things? >> >> >> >> Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to >> >> remain. But then I'll do the same in the other patch. >> >> >> >> This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody. >> > >> > >> > adding 5 letters (to change the next "if" into an "else if") versus your >> > addition of several lines and some 15 additional letters (ignoring the >> > whitsspace) is IMHO enough to see what is better? >> >> This has nothing to do with what Junio said. > > Well, it has, but you had snipped it. But replied to the goto issue regardless I didn't snip anything, this is a different context. >> This is better done without "goto" in general. He din't say: __ It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin", AND you fix the goto issue. __ You added that last part in your mind. Moreover, he didn't say goto was an issue, he simply stated an opinion about some generality. -- Felipe Contreras