From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach git-commit about commit message templates. Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:42:16 +0800 Message-ID: <46A6F0C8.7010204@midwinter.com> References: <20070723041741.GA22461@midwinter.com> <46A481B4.7000502@midwinter.com> <46A48949.1020501@midwinter.com> <7vfy3fkpr8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46A5EA2D.1030707@midwinter.com> <7v3azdh400.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 25 08:42:27 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IDaZm-0003Qz-QF for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:42:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757589AbXGYGmX (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:42:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756076AbXGYGmW (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:42:22 -0400 Received: from 91.86.32.216.static.reverse.layeredtech.com ([216.32.86.91]:44290 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753976AbXGYGmW (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:42:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 30274 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2007 06:42:21 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=DbhExkZfPOu/Ig2Nk5iy4PELZQ7yzXdy5+mzskHKec3c2x1Re+8MkjL6+dEtdrup ; Received: from localhost (HELO sgrimm-mbp.local) (koreth@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2007 06:42:21 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Macintosh/20070716) In-Reply-To: <7v3azdh400.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > No, I am way more cunning and lazy than that. I did not have > hunch about the common case, so I just had you (and anybody else > who would join the thread) do necessary thinking and guessing > for me ;-) > Ah, good. So it sounds like what I've got is at least an okay first cut from a functionality point of view. Dscho (or anyone else), any objections to the code in v2 of my patch? I believe I addressed all the feedback from v1. -Steve