From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow selection of different cleanup modes for commit messages
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:41:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vprwywm9c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712221107240.21557@woody.linux-foundation.org> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:18:34 -0800 (PST)")
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
>>
>> + if (!no_edit) {
>
> This is unrelated to the rest of the patch, but I do think double
> negations are horrible, so I thoink we should probably make the "no_edit"
> flag change meaning, and call it "run_editor" or something.
> ...
> So I wonder if we should perhaps:
>
> (a) Only add these messages at all when we do *not* do CLEANUP_ALL
> ...
> (b) Add a a new line to replace he "will not be included" message, ie
> ...
> I personally would prefer (a) - since anybody who then explicitly uses
> --cleanup={space|none} would presumably already know what he is doing.
>
> But this is not a huge deal. Regardless, the patch looks ok, so you can
> add a "Acked-by:" from me.
I was composing essentially the same message, except my
preference was (as you can guess by the fact that I hinted the
additional instruction) (b), but I agree that (a) is better at
least for now because the user has to ask for verbatim every
time (i.e. there is no config).
By the way, the "if (!no_edit)" conditional itself you quoted
above as the first thing in your message is not needed at all.
If no_edit is set, the function already has returned and we
would not reach that point.
So a third round?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-22 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-20 21:18 [PATCH] git-commit: add --verbatim to allow unstripped commit messages Alex Riesen
2007-12-20 21:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-12-20 23:33 ` Alex Riesen
2007-12-20 23:35 ` Alex Riesen
2007-12-20 23:37 ` [PATCH] Only filter "#" comments from commits if the editor is used Alex Riesen
2007-12-20 23:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-12-20 23:43 ` Alex Riesen
2007-12-20 23:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-12-20 23:48 ` [PATCH] Fix thinko in checking for commit message emptiness Alex Riesen
2007-12-20 23:55 ` [PATCH] git-commit: add --verbatim to allow unstripped commit messages Linus Torvalds
2007-12-21 0:14 ` Björn Steinbrink
2007-12-21 0:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-12-20 23:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-12-21 0:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-12-21 17:35 ` [PATCH] Allow selection of different cleanup modes for " Alex Riesen
2007-12-21 21:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-12-21 23:08 ` Alex Riesen
2007-12-22 7:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-12-22 18:46 ` Alex Riesen
2007-12-22 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-12-22 19:41 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2007-12-23 3:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-12-23 3:46 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vprwywm9c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raa.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).