From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E63E2018A for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751644AbcFWQr4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:47:56 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59152 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751390AbcFWQr4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:47:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 27962 invoked by uid 102); 23 Jun 2016 16:47:54 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:47:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 12267 invoked by uid 107); 23 Jun 2016 16:48:09 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:48:09 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:47:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:47:52 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Simon Courtois , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] color: support "italic" attribute Message-ID: <20160623164751.GA29882@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160623130828.GA25209@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160623131028.GB12653@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:46:57AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt > > index 58673cf..4b97d8d 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/config.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/config.txt > > @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ color:: > > colors (at most two) and attributes (at most one), separated > > This is describing the format accepted by color_parse_mem(), whose > main loop has /* [fg [bg]] [attr]... */ comment in front? > > Is "at most one" still correct, or it was already stale before this > patch? I think it was already stale. I'm actually preparing a re-roll that makes some of the parsing a bit less nasty, too. I'll fix that at the same time. -Peff