From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ferry Huberts (Pelagic)" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Ensure consistent usage of mergetool.keepBackup in git Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:44:59 +0200 Message-ID: <49E0F33B.8070806@pelagic.nl> References: <9a358c8b6275a7103eb036a2d1d6073bcf191e09.1239376248.git.ferry.huberts@pelagic.nl> <7vljq7dmg2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <49E0F27C.8070203@pelagic.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" , David Aguilar , Markus Heidelberg , Charles Bailey To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 11 21:46:46 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lsj9x-0002LZ-G6 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:46:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755699AbZDKTpD (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:45:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755542AbZDKTpD (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:45:03 -0400 Received: from hupie.xs4all.nl ([82.95.241.251]:39752 "EHLO Lighthouse.internal.Hupie.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754042AbZDKTpB (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:45:01 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] (unknown [192.168.0.101]) by Lighthouse.internal.Hupie.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C156458BD88; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:44:59 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) In-Reply-To: <49E0F27C.8070203@pelagic.nl> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ferry Huberts (Pelagic) wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ferry Huberts writes: >> >>> In several places merge.keepBackup is used i.s.o. >>> mergetool.keepBackup. This patch makes it all >>> consistent for git >> A silly question. The above makes it sound as if both merge.keepBackup >> and mergetool.keepBackup are valid, but the latter is preferred, and your >> patch makes things consistent even though without it there is nothing >> broken per-se. >> >> Is that really is the case? >> >> Otherwise, perhaps the title and the message should read like this: >> >> Fix misspelled mergetool.keepBackup >> >> In several places mergetool.keepBackup was misspelled as merge.keepBackup. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ferry Huberts > > feel free to change it :-) > imho there has been way too much discussion for such a simple patch. > replying to myself :-) maybe 'way too much' is a bit strong. I think the part of the discussion about finding out what actually to do was good. the rest was a bit too much for my taste. but I'm still getting used to ways of the git.devel list :-)