From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Display author and committer after "git commit" Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:52:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20100112145212.GA11053@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100106073806.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> <7v4omz17xz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vskagh9fg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vzl4lw160.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100112142405.GA13369@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Adam Megacz X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 12 15:52:39 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NUi6p-0006wa-6B for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:52:39 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752385Ab0ALOwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:52:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753020Ab0ALOwX (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:52:23 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:48040 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751036Ab0ALOwW (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:52:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 7711 invoked by uid 107); 12 Jan 2010 14:57:10 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:57:10 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:52:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100112142405.GA13369@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:24:06AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > - It tries to quote any percents in the author name, but user formats > don't actually have a quoting mechanism! Probably we should > interpret "%%" as "%". Even though it's a behavior change, I > consider the current behavior buggy. Actually, on second thought, they do: you can use %x25 to get the same effect. I still think we should support '%%' as a more readable and expected alternative (this is how printf works, and daemon.c's expansion already does this). -Peff