From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB17E20986 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754091AbcJGOdQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:33:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:53932 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752930AbcJGOdO (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:33:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 29951 invoked by uid 109); 7 Oct 2016 14:32:03 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:32:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 5791 invoked by uid 111); 7 Oct 2016 14:32:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 10:32:21 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 07 Oct 2016 10:32:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:32:01 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Heiko Voigt Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean up confusing suggestion for commit references Message-ID: <20161007143200.qw77pdsymbdmjhbw@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20161007095638.GA55445@book.hvoigt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161007095638.GA55445@book.hvoigt.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:56:38AM +0200, Heiko Voigt wrote: > The description for referencing commits looks as if it is contradicting > the example, since it is itself enclosed in double quotes. Lets use > single quotes around the description and include the double quotes in > the description so it matches the example. > --- > Sorry for opening this up again but I just looked up the format and was > like: "Umm, which one is now the correct one..." > > For this makes more sense. What do others think? Looking over the threads, I wasn't sure there was consensus[1,2]. So it would be equally correct to drop the quotes from the example. I dunno. I am in favor of no-quotes, myself, so maybe I am just manufacturing dissent in my mind. :) -Peff [1] http://public-inbox.org/git/a9731f60-5c30-0bc6-f73a-f7ffb7bd4231@kdbg.org/ [2] http://public-inbox.org/git/20160829183015.2uqnfezekjfa3ott@sigill.intra.peff.net/