Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] git: pass in repo for RUN_SETUP_GENTLY

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 09:41:38 -0700

Patrick Steinhardt <[email-masked]> 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.