Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Should I have added Approved by: in the log message?
For such a trivial change? Nah.
- Julian
Den fre 5 feb. 2021 kl 11:35 skrev Julian Foad :
> +1.
>
r1886227, kept the third and fourth lines of the comment unchanged since
the suggested change was >80 chars.
Should I have added Approved by: in the log message?
/Daniel Sahlberg
Den fre 5 feb. 2021 kl 11:19 skrev Julian Foad :
> (Ugh, sorry for the previous blank reply.)
>
> Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> > [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it
> easier to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
> >
> > - /* Iterate over e
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Like this?
> /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge.
>* Iterate in a parent-to-child order so that inherited mergeinfo is
> propagated
>* consistently from each parent path to its children. (Issue #4862) */
+1.
- Julian
(Ugh, sorry for the previous blank reply.)
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it easier
> to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
>
> - /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge. */
> -
Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> [...] Is it intentional to have both comments? [...] It would make it easier
> to understand (at least for me) if it was a single comment. [...]
>
> - /* Iterate over each path with explicit mergeinfo added by the merge. */
> - /* Iterate over the paths in a parent-to-c
6 matches
Mail list logo
