From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] add test_cmp function for test scripts Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:48:35 -0700 Message-ID: <7v63vqxsd8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080312213636.GG26286@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vmyp34mn6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080313120821.GA19485@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Whit Armstrong , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 13 21:49:34 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JZuMn-00063M-LK for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:49:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754486AbYCMUsx (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754181AbYCMUsx (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:53 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:33546 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754138AbYCMUsw (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A694A21BB; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74AA21BA; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080313120821.GA19485@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:08:21 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:12:45PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I think I have an earlier round of this in 'pu'. > > Oops, so you do. I remember discussing it but didn't recall a patch > coming out of it. > > I see you have queued mine now in pu over yours. I actually think yours > looks a little nicer (you sanity-check the comparator, and you are more > careful with stdin (something that I considered, but figured we could > add if something actually broke)). > > Any reason not to keep your existing one over mine? Yours is much simpler. And it is tested on the field, so if it ever breaks I have somebody else to blame ;-)