Re: [PATCH 1/2] merge-recursive: Workaround unused variable warning

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> So, I'd say it is more about programming errors, in particular ones
> where people modify the code to make process_entry() leave more cases
> unprocessed than what is currently possible without also making the
> necessary modifications to process_df_entry().

Yeah.  But they do not need to touch process_df_entry().

I actually was hoping that my weatherbaloon patch will illustrate that a
new special case these people may make to process_entry() to leave other
cases unprocessed do _NOT_ have to be handled by process_df_entry().

The "if" statement in process_df_entry() would check if the entry is
something the function is ready to resolve, and otherwise punts.  A new
exception they add to process_entry() can introduce a separate phase (just
like process_df_entry() is not done in parallel with other kinds of
entries inside the process_entry() but as a separate post-processing
phase) between the loop that calls process_df_entry() and the loop that
checks if there is a remaining entry.  And it probably should, as such a
new exception may not have anything to do with "df", and adding such a
logic to process_df_entry() would be wrong ;-).