From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix t3404 assumption that `wc -l` does not use whitespace. Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:31:49 -0700 Message-ID: <7vej8rgq62.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080427151610.GB57955@Hermes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Brian Gernhardt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 27 19:33:11 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1JqAkN-000546-6d for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:33:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754921AbYD0RcE (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:32:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754891AbYD0RcE (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:32:04 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:41619 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754606AbYD0RcB (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:32:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06D3339B; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:32:00 -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 4FE72339A; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:31:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:22:29 +0100 (BST)") 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: Johannes Schindelin writes: > ... It did not > help that I hated the fact that that series changed the original design > without even understanding it. Care to elaborate on this point further? I do not get it. Do you mean to say "I hate it because it does things differently from how I did it originally", or "Because it does things differently from how the original did, it breaks this and that cases"? If the latter, "this and that" part is especially useful. A solution to fix that may end up to be closer to the original implementation.