From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tag: support configuring --sort via .gitconfig Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:03:53 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1405119347-3308-1-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <1405119347-3308-3-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20140713173356.GA8406@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140713183629.GA19293@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1405435933.9147.1.camel@jekeller-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" , "peff\@peff.net" , "sunshine\@sunshineco.com" To: "Keller\, Jacob E" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 15 18:04:09 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 1X75D6-0005qh-BX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:04:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752231AbaGOQEE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:04:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:64883 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751509AbaGOQEC (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:04:02 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95BA28F02; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:03:43 -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=Ruj9+UgqmQY78AU0PI+62Yzb7MA=; b=kITFF+ lhrneuleEXdSQ2T+fl9OuOxSwQgC3ip4gtXlFEF9kRrcaKgPO2v7sstCh7Hb+inu jnQnH+xERVyWzfjCaFO1wPfSDLeKAlrYyXmcDIgAhotbcNXNKBX4xAEKuq6Wx/Wq 755LMc07BjhhORS+Paa6RM6na0EOXmz/uS9nw= 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=ArkUKTgpLEPwRICNftxL2rB/iSxIKXJv sIVU0ZcugfrCB433zZ8uiXsI3xKV2742fxcfRBGx8o5IDkq4l53AdHwwBDJFaBkR 0U6fn+ufJ1HRpvvBFVuziN4/qvIEEvnET9Y6hqp8XQwL/VdF0CEP4RguQGWv8IlM 2IfdtZmLzCE= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE0328F01; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B26D128EFA; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:03:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1405435933.9147.1.camel@jekeller-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com> (Jacob E. Keller's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:52:13 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 94D22110-0C39-11E4-8344-9903E9FBB39C-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Keller, Jacob E" writes: > On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 10:17 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King writes: >> >> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 01:33:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> > >> >> I realize that I am reinventing the error-reporting wheel on a sleepy >> >> Sunday afternoon without having thought about it much, so there is >> >> probably some gotcha or case that makes this ugly, or perhaps it just >> >> ends up verbose in practice. But one can dream. >> > >> > Just for fun... >> >> Yes, that is fun. >> >> I actually think your "In 'version:pefname' and 'wersion:refname', >> we want be able to report 'pefname' and 'wersion' are misspelled, >> and returning -1 or enum would not cut it" is a good argument. The >> callee wants to have flexibility on _what_ to report, just as the >> caller wants to have flexibility on _how_. In this particular code >> path, I think the former far outweighs the latter, and my suggestion >> I called "silly" might not be so silly but may have struck the right >> balance. I dunno. >> >> If you absolutely need to have both, you would need something like >> your approach, of course, but I am not sure if it is worth it. >> >> I am not sure how well this meshes with i18n (I know the "for fun" >> does not even attempt to, but if we tried to, I suspect it may >> become even uglier). We would also need to override both error and >> warning routines and have the reporter tag the errors in these two >> categories, no? > > Do we want to go this way? I do not speak for Peff, but I personally think this is just a "fun" demonstration, nothing more, and my gut feeling is that it would make things unnecessary complex without much real gain to pursue it further.