Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> You're right, I'm not sure how I missed the calls to sq_quote_buf() >> yesterday, sharing the am code with the sequencer would clean things up >> nicely. > > No, actually Phillip was right. The `author-script` file written by > `git-am` was always an implementation detail, and as there was no > (intended) way to call shell scripts while running `git-am`, the only > shell script to intentionally use `author-script` was `git-am` itself.
Well the thing is that you did not write "am". When I wrote "am", I did so with a deliberate design decision to keep the author-script in the same format so that it can be read by shell. You are behaving as if you made a silent decision to improve the author-script by designing a better micro-format that deviates from what shells read by doubling the backslash quoting and losing the single quote at the end of the line for only the last one, and your justification is that it does not matter how broken the new micro-format is because it is an implementation detail nobody should care. And worse yet, you did that improvement without telling anybody else why the new format is better. That's just silly. Just like everybody else, you are sometimes wrong and you sometimes make mistakes. The rest of time you are not wrong and your design decisions are not mistaken, but trying to defend an obvious mistake like this one with silly excuses is an easy way to lose credibility.
