Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] line-log: simplify condition checking for merge commits

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:57:17 -0700

Derrick Stolee <[email-masked]> writes:

> ... but the negation and OR condition made me need to pause and
> think about it, while the positive of "does it have a parent and
> a second parent?" was something that flowed naturally when I read
> it.

Yeah, that I 100% agree with.  If it were

	if (!(c->parent && c->parent->next))
		handle_ordinary_commit();
	else
		handle_merge_commit();

that would have been very easy to grok.  I do not have a strong
preference between that and

	if (c->parent && c->parent->next)
		handle_merge_commit();
	else
		handle_ordinary_commit();

myself, but I always felt that handling ordinary commits was the
primary thing in this code path, which made me react to the swapping
of orders of these two calls.

> Definitely a taste thing, so I could see you wanting to skip this
> one on a pure "don't touch what's not broken" policy.

True, too, but the code that fails to be in a readable shape too
falls into the "broken" category, so in that sense I do not mind
queuing the patch, either (and indeed tonight's 'seen' will include
this step in the topic).

Thanks.