From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] strbuf: add strbuf_tolower function Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:05:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20140523200534.GD19088@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140521102524.GA30301@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140521102742.GB30464@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140522055852.GA16587@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140522184113.GC1167@sigill.intra.peff.net> <0E298290-243D-46E5-A177-C6D3553D7153@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Kyle J. McKay" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 23 22:05:41 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 1Wnvin-0000im-2b for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 22:05:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751050AbaEWUFg (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2014 16:05:36 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58324 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750872AbaEWUFg (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2014 16:05:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 2276 invoked by uid 102); 23 May 2014 20:05:36 -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, 23 May 2014 15:05:36 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 23 May 2014 16:05:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0E298290-243D-46E5-A177-C6D3553D7153@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:52:08PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote: > >Christian brought this up elsewhere, and I agree it's probably better to > >work over the whole buffer, NULs included. I'm happy to re-roll (or you > >can just pick up the version of the patch in this thread), > > The only reason I brought up the code difference in the first place was that > the comment was "This makes config's lowercase() function public" which made > me expect to see basically the equivalent of replacing a "static" with an > "extern", but actually the function being made public was a different > implementation than config's lowercase() function. So it looks like the > original PATCH 2/9 version of the code is best, but perhaps the comment can > be tweaked a bit to not convey the same impression I got. Maybe something > like "Replace config's lowercase() function with a public one". Yeah, sorry if it sounded like I was complaining about your review elsewhere. I mostly found it amusing that I got two opposite-direction reviews. I agree that clarifying the situation in the commit message is best, and I've done that in the version I just posted. -Peff