From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: BUG: "git checkout" displays Q-escaped commit titles Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 18:54:10 -0700 Message-ID: <7vlk2qsukd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080502133903.GA3079@mithlond.arda.local> <20080502140536.GA3518@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Teemu Likonen , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 04 03:55:14 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 1JsTRW-0007r4-N0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 04 May 2008 03:55:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753506AbYEDByX (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 21:54:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753467AbYEDByW (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 21:54:22 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:49971 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753260AbYEDByW (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 21:54:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F732BF5; Sat, 3 May 2008 21:54:19 -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 099412BF3; Sat, 3 May 2008 21:54:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080502140536.GA3518@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 2 May 2008 10:05:36 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0298804C-197D-11DD-B57E-80001473D85F-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: Jeff King writes: > .... It seems like pp_title_line should perhaps just be checking > for fmt == CMIT_FMT_EMAIL, but I'm not sure if that would break anything > else,... Yeah, your patch obviously would fix the caller, as subject and after_subject should not be given unless you are doing FMT_EMAIL. But I also think we should not even look at subject and after_subject unless fmt is CMIT_FMT_EMAIL inside pp_title_line().