From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-rebase.sh: Use POSIX/Susv command substitution instead of backticks Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:59:06 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhcgm7vdx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jari Aalto , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 06 02:00:47 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 1JMYeX-0007xw-Qa for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:00:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756774AbYBFA7b (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:59:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760682AbYBFA7b (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:59:31 -0500 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:42698 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756774AbYBFA7a (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:59:30 -0500 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE78193DBF; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:59:50 -0500 (EST) 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 rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D761193D8D; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:59:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:06:48 +0000 (GMT)") 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: > And then you have to do it for all scripts in one go. Mind you, it is not > really complicated: just one call to perl. Please do not do this. If other people have pending changes, "cleanup for clean-up's sake" would create conflicts for no good reason. There are only two cases such a clean-up patch is good: (1) When the maintainer is not yet accepting any patches after a release-freeze and there is no pending patches from the community, and/or if you can convince people with pending patches to rebase on top of the clean-up because the current codebase is so unmaintainably bad, then a whole-tree clean-up patch should go in before anything else, forcing everybody to rebase on top of it; (2) If you will be working on the code in an area, you may want to have the first one in the series a "pure clean-up and nothing else" of the whole area, and then build your real changes on top. You still need to coordinate with people whose patches may get hit by your clean-ups, but you have to do this anyway because you will have conflicts from your "real changes". Any other "clean-up patch" would result in a not-so-appreciated code churn. Please don't encourage it.