From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Subject: Re: Implementing branch attributes in git config Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:15:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1147101345.27362.15.camel@dv> References: <1147037659.25090.25.camel@dv> <1147051300.17371.32.camel@dv> <1147053329.17371.52.camel@dv> <7vody8howu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 08 17:16:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fd7TX-0003vU-Sm for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 17:16:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932380AbWEHPQ2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2006 11:16:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932377AbWEHPQ1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2006 11:16:27 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:39324 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932378AbWEHPQO (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 May 2006 11:16:14 -0400 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Fd7Ss-00070z-IR for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 11:16:11 -0400 Received: from proski by dv.roinet.com with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fd7Sb-0007i2-Nx; Mon, 08 May 2006 11:15:45 -0400 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vody8howu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 02:00 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stating what you do not like about something is a good first > step to improve that something. It should not be too hard to > extend the parser to grok: > > repo-config --get branchdata.description '\(.*\) for netdev$' > > and when the value_regex has a capture return what matches > instead of the entire value. I think that would do what you > want. OK, that would be acceptable. I still don't like the "for" conversion because it masquerades syntax (note that text to right of "for" must be unique) as plain text, but it's a matter of taste, so it's hard for me to argue about it. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin