> 1. Comment regarding > ------ > 347 * Check for the possibility that the target is in fact a direct > 348 * ancestor of the source. In that case, there is no divergent history > 349 * in the target that needs rewinding. > ------ > are better be reformulated as overall block contents are mostly cover vice > versa case of a target NOT being a direct ancestor of the source. Maybe: "We > need rewind in cases when .... and don't need only if the target is a direct > ancestor of the source." I think it will be more understandable if it would be > a commentary with descriptions of all cases in the block or no commentary > before the block at all with commentaries of these cases on each if/else > inside the block instead.
The comment you cite is not part of this patch. I suspect there might be some
Sure, it is comment describes the whole block the patch introduces changes into. If it could be rendered more relevant and anyway you are planning to revise it again, it would be great to change it also. But I don't insist.
Note that the patch may require reworking for HEAD due to changes in commit 9c4f5192f6. I'll try to take another look this week.
