From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10CD1F463 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726664AbfLPTJA (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:09:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58443 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726368AbfLPTJA (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:09:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDEB95AED; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:08:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=bZoKOshwY1hI3D7r+nGg3tOjp3o=; b=AedDH2 lh/2x0yF/RAkdrrB9n2dw3bqT1cqSIJeTPEGyPtw8zx5enSND7CEWZbgbbQ7aLHC DeSPPMcyOUfMVTIZOAXH72EkE5EQkjefDjPMgFxRQkxAXE7QncqsKU5ZwVU4/hJx iBJifQJLgfWiie6YlGn6F7EBOcZCk8LfSjPWI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=K9+kVcFIM8b2jdMjZo/pQH/ZkTQVSMjK ng5wfxY981esh+cxQDo1YGODXHP9/SqdptOqNSzOJLw9idVllkj8XIDXURZ5ODw6 eqF9Gt++RXCxGMTeBQlhvmGCPi7u3IrmBBE8Q4ptVP6Yan3x7sxVl31KCeCYa0uT qQgE6+jN+6U= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9783095AEC; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:08:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B879795AEA; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:08:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Miriam Rubio Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Tanushree Tumane , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [Outreachy] [PATCH] bisect--helper: change `retval` to `res` References: <20191216111246.5190-1-mirucam@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:08:54 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20191216111246.5190-1-mirucam@gmail.com> (Miriam Rubio's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:12:46 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 822FF240-2037-11EA-A610-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Miriam Rubio writes: > From: Tanushree Tumane > > Convert of variable `retval` to `res` make `bisect--helper.c` > more consistent. > > Now, 110 ocurrences of `res` in file and zero `retval` occurrences. And why is this a desirable change, not merely a distracting code churn? IOW, are there other changes that build on this change that benefits from the fact that the variable that holds the value to be returned is always called "res" after this patch gets applied? FWIW, I actually think "retval" would be a more appropriate name for the variable that holds the value to be returned than "res", but it is not worth the churn either way---I see this more as "once the code is written one way, it is not worth wasting bits and brain cycles to change it" kind of issue. Unless there are other valid reasons to do this change, that is. Thanks.