Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes: > >> Siddharth Kannan <kannan.siddhart...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> handle_revision_opt() tries to recognize and handle the given argument. If >>> an >>> option was unknown to it, it used to add the option to unkv[(*unkc)++]. >>> This >>> increment of unkc causes the variable in the caller to change. >>> >>> Teach handle_revision_opt to not update unknown arguments inside unkc >>> anymore. >>> This is now the responsibility of the caller. >>> >>> There are two callers of this function: >>> >>> 1. setup_revision: Changes have been made so that setup_revision will now >>> update the unknown option in argv >> >> You're writting "Changes have been made", but I did not see any up to >> this point in the series. > > Actually, I think you misread the patch and explanation. > handle_revision_opt() used to be responsible for stuffing unknown > ones to unkv[] array passed from the caller even when it returns 0 > (i.e. "I do not know what they are" case, as opposed to "I know what > they are, I am not handling them here and leaving them in unkv[]" > case--the latter returns non-zero). The first hunk makes the > function stop doing so, and to compensate, the second hunk, which is > in setup_revisions()
Indeed, I misread the patch. The explanation could be a little bit more "tired-reviewer-proof" by not using a past tone, perhaps 1. setup_revision, which is changed to ... -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
