From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Drew Northup Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] revert: Introduce --continue to continue the operation Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:52:38 -0400 Message-ID: <1309989158.13231.7.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu> References: <1309938868-2028-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1309938868-2028-14-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <7vliwbjebk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra , Git List , Jonathan Nieder , Christian Couder , Daniel Barkalow To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 06 23:53:47 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qea2U-0007DZ-17 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:53:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751754Ab1GFVxl (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:41 -0400 Received: from beryl.its.maine.edu ([130.111.32.94]:41281 "EHLO beryl.its.maine.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751519Ab1GFVxk (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:40 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2610:48:100:827::97] (drew-northup.unet.maine.edu [IPv6:2610:48:100:827::97]) by beryl.its.maine.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p66LqiJh013143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:52:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7vliwbjebk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-8.el5_2.3) X-DCC-UniversityOfMaineSystem-Metrics: beryl.its.maine.edu 1003; Body=6 Fuz1=6 Fuz2=6 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-UmaineSystem-MailScanner-ID: p66LqiJh013143 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: drew.northup@maine.edu X-UmaineSystem-MailScanner-Watermark: 1310594009.36635@VfiICoIJDoCG9gPO/SmlMQ Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 14:21 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > +static void verify_opt_mutually_compatible(const char *me, ...) > > +{ > > Isn't "being compatible" by definition "mutual"? As a strict matter of language, no. And example we see far too often @work is that MS Office 2010 is compatible with MS Office 2007, but the same cannot be said the other way around. (Now if I can convince them that not everyone in the world has MS Office...) > > I.e. verify-option-compatibility perhaps? +1 sensible, if that's the intention. -- -Drew Northup ________________________________________________ "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59