On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:17:27PM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > And me, who is trying to figure out what to do with this patch. It is
> > presented on its own, outside of a series, with only the description "no
> > reason not to do this".
>
> Yeah, because I think it stands on its own. But
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:02:48PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>> Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder
>> > wrote:
>> >> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It's all fun and game
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:02:48PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not
> >>> that easy
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> Yeah, that would be nice. Too bad I don't have that information, and
>> have _zero_ motivation to go and get it for you.
>
> Just to clarify: That information is not just for Jonathan, but fo
Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>>> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not
>>> that easy when you want those explanations to be actually true, and
>>> corrent--you
On 10/30/2012 11:17 PM, Elia Pinto wrote:
> Thanks. I know that posix support these usages, but exists some
> traditional shell that not support it.
>
True, but those shells are not POSIX shells -- the major example that
comes to mind is the accursed Solaris /bin/sh.
Since Git assumes a POSIX shel
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not
>> that easy when you want those explanations to be actually true, and
>> corrent--you have to spend time to make sure of that.
>
> That's wh
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not
> that easy when you want those explanations to be actually true, and
> corrent--you have to spend time to make sure of that.
That's why it's useful for the patch submitter to write them, asking
for he
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> > Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
No reason to use the full path in case this is used externally.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
>>>
>>> "No r
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> No reason to use the full path in case this is used externally.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
>>
>> "No reason not to" is not a reason to do anything. What symptoms does
>
Thanks. I know that posix support these usages, but exists some
traditional shell that not support it. These are described in the
autoconf manual, last time i have checked. As the construct ; export
var = x should be portable, but it is not. If this is important these
days i don't know.
Best
201
Elia Pinto wrote:
> The shell word splitting done in base is a bashism, iow not portable.
No, ${varname##glob} is in POSIX and we already use it here and there.
See Documentation/CodingGuidelines:
- We use ${parameter#word} and its [#%] siblings, and their
doubled "longest matching" form
The shell word splitting done in base is a bashism, iow not portable.
Best
2012/10/30, Felipe Contreras :
> No reason to use the full path in case this is used externally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
> t/test-lib.sh | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> dif
Hi,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> No reason to use the full path in case this is used externally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
"No reason not to" is not a reason to do anything. What symptoms does
this prevent? Could you describe the benefit of this patch in a
paragraph starting "Now you c
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:12:57AM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> No reason to use the full path in case this is used externally.
>
> I think it is not just "no reason to", but it is actively wrong to use a
> full path, as we do not take car
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:12:57AM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> No reason to use the full path in case this is used externally.
I think it is not just "no reason to", but it is actively wrong to use a
full path, as we do not take care to "mkdir -p" the intervening path
components.
However, t
16 matches
Mail list logo
