From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:41:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] git: pass in repo for RUN_SETUP_GENTLY
Message-ID: <xmqq1q16l64d.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <ZvVumLAFu1LGzXWP@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

>> -	status = p->fn(argc, argv, prefix, (p->option & RUN_SETUP)? repo : NULL);
>> +	status = p->fn(argc,
>> +		       argv,
>> +		       prefix,
>> +		       ((p->option & RUN_SETUP) || (p->option & RUN_SETUP_GENTLY))? repo : NULL);
>>  	validate_cache_entries(repo->index);
>
> Should we really pass `repo` unconditionally when `RUN_SETUP_GENTLY` was
> requested? I'd think that we should rather pass `NULL` if we didn't find
> a repository in that case. So this condition should likely be made
> conditional, shouldn't it?

Yeah, that is much much more preferrable than my earlier suggestion
to pass yet another Boolean parameter to p->fn().

> There's also a missing space between the closing brace and the ternary
> questionmark.

True, too.