On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 12:44 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > +static void get_error_msg(struct strbuf* error_msg, const char* oldname, > unsigned old_branch_exists, > > + const char* newname, int > > new_branch_validation_result) > > nit here and in the return of validate_branch_creation: > It would be clearer if this is not just 'int', but actually spelling > out that it is the enum.
Thanks. That's a good suggestion. I'll fix it while dropping [PATCH 3/5] that cleans up the 'validate_new_branchname' function as there's already another series that refactored the same function and got merged to 'next', https://public-inbox.org/git/20171013051132.3973-1-gits...@pobox.com/ -- Kaartic
