Subject: Re: [WIP/PATCH v5 02/10] for-each-ref: clean up code

From: Karthik Nayak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:51:47 +0530

On 06/08/2015 08:07 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> In 'grab_single_ref()' remove the extra count variable 'cnt' and
>> use the variable 'grab_cnt' of structure 'grab_ref_cbdata' directly
>> instead.
>>
>> Change comment in 'struct ref_sort' to reflect changes in code.
>
> I don't see how the comment change is related to the code change:
>
>>   struct ref_sort {
>>   	struct ref_sort *next;
>> -	int atom; /* index into used_atom array */
>> +	int atom; /* index into 'struct atom_value *' array */
>>   	unsigned reverse : 1;
>>   };
>>
>> @@ -881,7 +881,6 @@ static int grab_single_ref(const char *refname, const unsigned char *sha1, int f
>>   {
>>   	struct grab_ref_cbdata *cb = cb_data;
>>   	struct refinfo *ref;
>> -	int cnt;
>>
>>   	if (flag & REF_BAD_NAME) {
>>   		  warning("ignoring ref with broken name %s", refname);
>> @@ -898,10 +897,8 @@ static int grab_single_ref(const char *refname, const unsigned char *sha1, int f
>>   	 */
>>   	ref = new_refinfo(refname, sha1, flag);
>>
>> -	cnt = cb->grab_cnt;
>> -	REALLOC_ARRAY(cb->grab_array, cnt + 1);
>> -	cb->grab_array[cnt++] = ref;
>> -	cb->grab_cnt = cnt;
>> +	REALLOC_ARRAY(cb->grab_array, cb->grab_cnt + 1);
>> +	cb->grab_array[cb->grab_cnt++] = ref;
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>
> Did you squash the comment change into the wrong commit?
>

What I meant was, change the comment to reflect changes in code since 
the comment was made, not relevant to the simplification of code.

I put these two together as they are trivial changes.
Either I could reword the commit message or split the commit.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik