Re: [PATCH 2/3] Fix some "variable might be used uninitialized" warnings

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

Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:

>> [I don't think traverse_trees() would ever be called with n == 0 anyway; the call
>> site in builtin/merge-tree.c is called with the constant 3, and the call-chains(s)
>> which start from unpack_trees() are protected by "if (len)", where 'len' is unsigned.]
>
> When patches don't even make it to pu I just assume you hate them so much that
> there is not much chance of them being applied and simply forget about them.
> In this case, since compiler warnings are a bugbear of mine, I'm hoping that
> you just forgot about this one ... :-D  [if not, sorry for the noise].

Thanks for a reminder.

The reason a patch may not hit 'pu', unless I or other people whose
judgement I trust explicity say "the approach taken by the patch is
utterly wrong" is either because (1) the discussion for or against the
topic is still going strong and there is little chance of it getting
forgotten by everybody, (2) I do not see much discussion for or against
the topic, and I am indifferent, or (3) the patch was just lost in the
noise.

So a good default strategy for a series that do not hit 'pu' is to
re-post. Such a perseverance was what took format-patch to hit Linus's
tree in June-July 2005 timeframe---we wouldn't have the command today, had
I given up back then ;-).