From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk (Ben Hutchings) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:42:53 +0100 Subject: [cip-dev] [cip-kernel-sec 2/2] remotes: call _get_configured_remotes In-Reply-To: References: <20190617022039.7197-1-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> <20190617022039.7197-2-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> <1560802573.21054.30.camel@codethink.co.uk> Message-ID: <1560868973.21054.36.camel@codethink.co.uk> To: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org List-Id: cip-dev.lists.cip-project.org On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 23:48 +0000, daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp wrote: > > From: Ben Hutchings > > > > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 11:20 +0900, Daniel Sangorrin wrote: > > > This is probably a copy&paste mistake that had no effect > > > because the contents of _get_configured_remotes and > > > _get_configured_branches is the same. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Sangorrin > > > > Maybe it would make more sense to merge the two functions instead? > > I thought about that but in the future you may want to add some code > that is specific to one of them. If you want me to consolidate them, > what name would you use? Actually these two functions aren't exactly the same, since the default return value differs. In practice that doesn't make a difference at the moment, but logically it would be wrong to return one or the other. So I'll apply your original patch. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Software Developer ? Codethink Ltd https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom