From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonas Bernoulli Subject: Re: Empty config sections are neither deleted nor reused Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 20:54:28 +0200 Message-ID: <878tzc1ndn.fsf@bernoul.li> References: <87r3d6knwo.fsf@bernoul.li> <877fewzseg.fsf@bernoul.li> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 14 20:54:44 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b1ei3-0007qG-0v for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 14 May 2016 20:54:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932188AbcENSyh (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 May 2016 14:54:37 -0400 Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([212.243.197.30]:43664 "EHLO mail.hostpark.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752370AbcENSyh (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 May 2016 14:54:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26A416B39; Sat, 14 May 2016 20:54:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Hostpark/NetZone Mailprotection at hostpark.net Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1.hostpark.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10124) with ESMTP id wtT_MPag-G3O; Sat, 14 May 2016 20:54:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hal (80-218-86-217.dclient.hispeed.ch [80.218.86.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C12B816B35; Sat, 14 May 2016 20:54:33 +0200 (CEST) User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 25.0.93.1 In-reply-to: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Matthieu Moy writes: > >> Junio's explanation must not necessarily be read as "it has to be the >> way it is", but more as "getting it right is harder than you think", and >> that in turn explains why no one changed the behavior. > > Thanks for clarification. s/must not necessarily/must not/; That's how I read it too ;-) Apparently my reply left more room for interpretation.