Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> failure:
> - for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
> + for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
> if (reported_error)
> cmd->error_string = reported_error;
> else if (strmap_contains(&failed_refs, cmd->ref_name))
> cmd->error_string = strmap_get(&failed_refs, cmd->ref_name);
> - }
>
> cleanup:
> ref_transaction_free(transaction);
>
> We generally add brackets in such scenarios, but the style-check
> suggests to use them instead.
The above falls into "once the code is written" category I mentioned
in the other thread. I do not mind the original, and I do not think
the suggested change makes it significantly worse, but there is no
significant improvement, either. If the original is in the public
tree, it is not worth the patch churn to update it to match the
suggestion, but if the original is something you are yet to send it
out to the public consumption, it would be a good idea to take the
suggestion before sending it out.
