From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add '%d' pretty format specifier to show decoration Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:04:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20080903210418.GB32413@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20080903191217.GA31195@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v4p4xat3v.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080903203616.GB32223@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vsksh9c9m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael Dressel , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 03 23:05:54 2008 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 1KazXc-0000mn-9H for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:05:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753892AbYICVEV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:04:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753706AbYICVEV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:04:21 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:2292 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752778AbYICVEU (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:04:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 518 invoked by uid 111); 3 Sep 2008 21:04:19 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:04:19 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:04:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vsksh9c9m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 01:59:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Isn't that what you argued against in Dscho's version of the patch? > > > > http://mid.gmane.org/7v1w5exfwb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org > > Yeah, but unlike Linus, I am not infallible. Also, I can change my mind. Heh. OK, I am not against you changing your mind, but I like to at least see "...and here is what is different." So thank you. I think adding the space to the parentheses makes the most sense. Without more advanced syntax, we have to make a choice between doing too much (e.g., adding parentheses when the user doesn't want it) and too little (the user has to put in parentheses manually, which means they are there whether there is decoration or not). Doing parentheses _without_ the space means we fail at both. So let us at least get it half right. ;) -Peff