Re: [PATCH] rebase -i: Fix possibly wrong onto hash in todo

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:05:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:58:14AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Antti Keränen <antti@keraset.fi> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:36:21AM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> >> >> Ack, I noticed this too during my review, but apparently forgot to
> >> >> comment on it. I'm puzzled by the first '..*'. If you're searching for
> >> >> any non-empty string, how about '.+' instead?
> >> >
> >> > That's true. Good point. I pretty much copy&pasted the 'todo count' test
> >> > so I didn't give this much thought. I'll fix this.
> >>
> >> Please don't shorten ..* into .+ if you are writing a portable sed
> >> script---stick to the BRE.
> >
> > Sure, and sorry -- I didn't know that we cared about the difference
> > between BRE and ERE. Do you prefer ..* over .\+? Both should be
> > supported in BRE, if I'm reading [1] correctly.
>
> I thought that BRE only commands taking backslash-quoted ERE was GNU
> extension?

*Grumble*, it's not anywhere in POSIX:

  https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap09.html

...making this a GNU-ism.

> Look for "stick to a subset of BRE" in Documention/CodingGuidelines;
> we may need to update the document to raise the baseline to match
> the reality of year 2020, though.

So, I think the "reality of year 2020" is that we still write '..*'
instead of '.\+'.

Thanks,
Taylor