From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] color-words: refactor to allow for 0-character word boundaries Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:08:26 -0800 Message-ID: <7viqolo2z9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 12 00:10:06 2009 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 1LM9RU-0002e8-An for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:10:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752162AbZAKXId (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752096AbZAKXId (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:33 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:62205 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751858AbZAKXIc (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7778F3D9; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (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 ESMTPSA id 0ADA38F3D2; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:08:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:59:54 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C3C5046A-E034-11DD-AE87-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > This code was ugly, for a number of reasons: > ... > Fix all of these issues by processing the text such that Looks much cleaner than the original. I didn't compare it with Thomas's, but it seems he found some breakages, so I'd expect a second round sometime in the future.