On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 02:36:04PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> @@ -652,7 +660,7 @@ int cmd_rev_list(int argc, > >> */ > >> /* > >> * NEEDSWORK: These loops that attempt to find presence of > >> - * options without understanding that the options they are > >> + * options without understanding the options they are > >> * skipping are broken (e.g., it would not know "--grep > >> * --exclude-promisor-objects" is not triggering > >> * "--exclude-promisor-objects" option). We really need > > > > This tacked-on bit seems funny to me. Isn't the original more correct? > > The loops do not understand that the options are broken. > > No, the options are fine, but the loops are broken -- they cannot tell > what they are looking at is an option or an argument of a preceding > option, yet they ignore that latter possibility. So the word "that" > is best left out. I also don't see a connection to the struct move, > though. Ah, yeah, that makes more sense. It is an awkward sentence either way. :) -Peff
