Re: [PATCH 3/4] revert: simplify insn parsing logic

[Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>]

Hi Junio,

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I suspect that this may be a bit over-engineered, but on the other hand,
> if we do not foresee that we would be adding many other verbs, I do not
> think there is much point in your patch to clean up the verb parsing part,
> either, so...

interesting; yes, it does look a little over-engineered for the
moment.  I should have been clearer in the commit message: this patch
exists mainly so that [4/4] can report a sensible error message
instead of a literal "Missing space after valid verb".  So, we have
four options from here:
1. Squash this part into [4/4].  Will this give rise to additional confusion?
2. Use your version of the patch.
3. Append the following to the commit message: "This patch exists so
that the next patch can report a sensible error message when an
invalid verb is encountered".
4. If you don't think [4/4] is valuable yet, just apply the first two
parts of this series.

I'm personally in favor of (1) now.

Thanks.

    Ram