From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CC71F4F8 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754261AbcIVWOh (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:14:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62644 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751123AbcIVWOg (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:14:36 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D672D3F501; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:14:34 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=jwj7e0mUpMzFlVXImREf9afrBsU=; b=fgZ392 P8VnbMBkjMWOz9HqfEOVDgxpAHcTB0IRMz9lHokgYkFdreMp36cHSmyHtEE3TJEe +2XLzd/+R111Ya8c/SyLWNSZby2fb7+I8UBVRY0z2jLbhYtkXOEmrVOcjsvMYC61 Fa6xnKC7GbGr1OKjQ/1vmkRgGHqKlVwdFgyR0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=s0YROQteZiIwi0fqRltR3crIIPe9b6jv ZPQc0q6WvFpsRFlmKsiDr7boQTVHOa0l7YMMkS8bUE53cI2clL/ucpc7JGVNbiG8 SRyrKPMoQQ9+g0Ta7eTe6C1Te6+mlf5wc4/FuDhLIBsA5Tiy6tlqEYCGbdSmaOMF JEsnj+eoFO8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA953F4FF; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FF1F3F4FD; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:14:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Kevin Daudt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2016, #05; Mon, 19) References: <20160921162628.GA27363@ikke.info> <20160921174550.GB27363@ikke.info> <20160922064931.ganuwswlnom6nzya@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:14:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160922064931.ganuwswlnom6nzya@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:49:31 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F1418838-8111-11E6-8BA3-EAAE7A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:45:50PM +0200, Kevin Daudt wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > Kevin Daudt writes: >> > >> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:30:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > >> >> > >> * kd/mailinfo-quoted-string (2016-09-19) 2 commits >> > >> - mailinfo: unescape quoted-pair in header fields >> > >> - t5100-mailinfo: replace common path prefix with variable >> > > >> > > Is this good enough, or do you want me to look into the feedback from >> > > jeff? >> > >> > If you are talking about the simplified loop that deliberately sets >> > a rule that is looser than RFC, yes, I'd like to see you at least >> > consider the pros and cons of his approach, which looked nicer to my >> > brief reading of it. >> > >> > It is perfectly OK by me (it may not be so if you ask Peff) if you >> > decide that your version is better after doing so, though. >> >> Alright, I'll look into it. > > Thanks. I am OK if we do not use my simplified version, but I think > there were some issues I noted with your last version. Yup, even some automated tool noticed a new leak ;-)