From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/12] Move lower case functions into wrapper.c Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:50:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20140328185018.GB29987@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140326215858.11352.89243.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20140326221531.11352.86408.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20140327.084745.2069840957131666658.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20140327223406.GA32434@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140327225658.GC32434@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, johan@herland.net, josh@joshtriplett.org, tr@thomasrast.ch, mhagger@alum.mit.edu, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, greg@kroah.com, sunshine@sunshineco.com, ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 28 19:50:31 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 1WTbrJ-0005FP-Ur for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:50:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752406AbaC1SuW (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:50:22 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:49492 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752017AbaC1SuU (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:50:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 32532 invoked by uid 102); 28 Mar 2014 18:50:20 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:50:20 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:50:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:12:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > By the way, that is "rfc2822"---do we want "rfc822" as its synonym > as well as "rfc", I wonder ;-) Oops, I wrote that as I was literally looking at the code that said rfc2822 and didn't notice. On the other hand, I have never made the mistake when actually running git, so it is probably not a big deal. Besides which, isn't it 5322 these days? I do not think we need to keep up with the treadmill. -Peff