From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Packham Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] git-web--browse: avoid the use of eval Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:04:46 +1200 Message-ID: <4E78572E.6030105@gmail.com> References: <20110918183846.GA31176@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1316424415-11156-1-git-send-email-judge.packham@gmail.com> <20110919183408.GB26115@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, jepler@unpythonic.net To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 20 11:04:43 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R5wFu-0000pN-OA for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:04:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755089Ab1ITJEh (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:04:37 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:36914 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754763Ab1ITJEf (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:04:35 -0400 Received: by gyg10 with SMTP id 10so176377gyg.19 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:04:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YPIVvFpiR88na9d3pXqw87TLhRGvBMy77VBAy9pFAAM=; b=RyyVgCx7mOP3nl0kjpUT9bDHJvYNP/MPkhRRjfQj1KW5esykxcCZuFd/6HP92oWmCm wC35KL+f71o3IjOqq1wYSDVNspn5RXTU/YjDTUEYlTTIWOzCAqEWBGncB4evMb4BZd6o jDcvZW157mzs26qs5MD8Zatv4KTlOk6J0jEgY= Received: by 10.101.125.9 with SMTP id c9mr426977ann.109.1316509475377; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laptop.site (115-188-15-163.jetstream.xtra.co.nz. [115.188.15.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g17sm9651763ana.15.2011.09.20.02.04.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:04:34 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 SUSE/3.1.12 Thunderbird/3.1.12 In-Reply-To: <20110919183408.GB26115@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 20/09/11 06:34, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:26:55PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > >> Using eval causes problems when the URL contains an appropriately >> escaped ampersand (\&). Dropping eval from the built-in browser >> invocation avoids the problem. >> >> Cc: peff@peff.net >> Cc: chriscool@tuxfamily.org >> Cc: jepler@unpythonic.net > > Although other projects do use "cc" in the commit message, I think we > don't usually bother adding this noise in the git project. The cc > headers in your email are enough. That's more for git send-email's benefit than anything else. I'm working on a laptop with a touchpad (and a cat) so the less switching between editor and MUA the better. Any better suggestions for tracking Cc's for git send-email? >> I've replaced my tests With the test suggested by Peff (should I be >> giving him credit in the copyright line or something?). > > For a minor bit of help, usually mentioning the person in the commit > message (with a "Helped-by", or indicating which parts they contributed > to) is plenty. Personally, I don't even care much about that. My > contributions to git are thoroughly documented in the commit history and > the mailing list at this point. :) > > I also find the "Copyright ..." lines in the files to be overkill, too. > They end up becoming out-of-date as other people work on the file. The > commit history is the best way to get the right answer, and a comment in > the file is at best redundant with what's there. But that is just my > opinion; I don't know that we have a particular policy for such > things[1]. > > -Peff > > [1] Once upon a time, I think I saw the advice that every file should > have a copyright notice and mention the license at the top of the file, > but I don't know that it has ever been tested in court. I suppose the > distributed tarballs of a particular version would lack the copyright > attribution, but in that case, my solution would be to generate it from > the commit history at packaging time. The example in t/README has has a copyright notice which is why I put one in but I don't consider the test (or the fix itself) to actually be copyrightable. If I wasn't creating a new file I wouldn't have bothered putting anything in (other than the testcase).