From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] git: submodule honor -c credential.* from command line Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:23:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20160225062311.GA5541@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1456358352-28939-1-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Eric Sunshine , Jacob Keller , Git List , Mark Strapetz , Stefan Beller , Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 25 07:23:18 2016 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 1aYpKY-0002UF-G7 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:23:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756493AbcBYGXO (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:23:14 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:48846 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753847AbcBYGXO (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:23:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 16869 invoked by uid 102); 25 Feb 2016 06:23:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:23:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 16958 invoked by uid 107); 25 Feb 2016 06:23:22 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:23:22 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:23:11 -0500 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 Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:19:05PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> + /* combined all the values before we quote them */ > > > > Comment repeats what the code already says, thus not terribly useful. > > > > Also: s/combined/combine/ > > > I tend to make comments like this when I change the obvious way it was > done, I commented this because I based it on a scratch patch from Jeff > that didn't have them put together before quoting. That's a good point. The _what_ is not interesting here, but the _why_ might be. Namely that we must quote the whole thing as a unit, or the parser on the receiving end will not be able to read it. I'd also be amenable to relaxing the parser (which is as strict as it is only out of laziness, and the fact that it was reading the output only of its nearby generator function). But I can understand if you don't feel like digging into that. -Peff