Re: [PATCH v2] daemon: correctly handle soft accept() errors in service_loop
On 28/06/2025 00:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> That seems unnecessarily restrictive just to minimize churn and leaves the
>> deflaration of incoming strangely sitting in between two assignments, which
>> while it doesn't trigger -Wdeclaration-after-statement seems to go against
>> its spirit.
>
> Hmph, I am not Phillip, but my take on it is that incoming and retry
> are fairly closely related variables in this loop, and better
> grouped together?
That was my thinking too
Thanks
Phillip