From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] is_hfs_dotgit: loosen over-eager match of \u{..47} Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:11:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20141223211152.GB13304@peff.net> References: <20141223084536.GA25190@peff.net> <5499D10E.5050704@kdbg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Linus Torvalds To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 23 22:11:58 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3WkH-0006l8-SD for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:11:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755068AbaLWVLx (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:11:53 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:56807 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751365AbaLWVLw (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:11:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 20679 invoked by uid 102); 23 Dec 2014 21:11:52 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:11:52 -0600 Received: (qmail 24177 invoked by uid 107); 23 Dec 2014 21:12:04 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:12:04 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:11:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5499D10E.5050704@kdbg.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:31:10PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 23.12.2014 um 09:45 schrieb Jeff King: > > @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static ucs_char_t next_hfs_char(const char **in) > > * but this is enough to catch anything that will convert > > * to ".git" > > */ > > - return tolower(out); > > + return out; > > Did you consider changing the comment that we see in the pre-context here? I did consider it, but the comment that is there was actually written for the _original_ version, before I added tolower in the first place (it also applied equally to the tolower() version, so I left it). So it was clear either way, at least in my brain. :) Of course that does not say anything about people's brains who did not write the patch. The changes Junio suggested elsewhere in the thread do make it more clear. -Peff