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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 163AF1F428 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 05:38:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750835AbdLPFih (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:38:37 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:41351 "EHLO mail-it0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711AbdLPFif (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:38:35 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x28so23082477ita.0 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:38:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yg9a0jeZUaxLtM++C2doeyDavstj/Q7Y6Hdr/ogzlEg=; b=pJyiSsJqUMX8jwazPrqjV9p65X4rRxWgZwJzL313gHjs1zfa5JfKcWr+3evqm+gIgo PNnRjMVaxoR3WIj8eF1cD++ETAoBYETEHO5S5buF/O7cGfh5ezkuXbNqfgRhoP/iVOSM peizZeAIzcYnsKwrDOBFwxj76qqW+UpUIAaNd+rbfZdE69aIhNllh61D2AL2I/b8nA2L P8JvhMsk5OYUqw01AzQCIB4L/GFkI+3Uf/5C+2UAmdoAdrvUx2VMC2QX5QrCizZ5+Rt5 uioJaxPfQen5qL7Mr1D+AiBDSNG2JMx8dCV7oPa8+OXq67RE3RiypTOn9AVhns8S6wB1 hytg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yg9a0jeZUaxLtM++C2doeyDavstj/Q7Y6Hdr/ogzlEg=; b=QbaFQXNaNs+8IF1Kbu3VLbxeIIIBT+o5ASQgW1v0/ll0gvWT5ImirQ8u2RVwk20jQR IVOH6zG9I1WmarOr6u8M6gZzymxLFAbn0EiZPntYX2XPF0hLlROJDI1oYs01ERehW8eM zniCvztEMvY/KgzI+Z1uLSFaU8H00OczH2eKq/XrxmZ/Pb4M51octDar46w89WYYzrC1 HjrWwUWlJRCmFjNERA2gPQGxcRNf6z4xt4uqrtdH0o65hdjakJBLuArfALNgmZlK6JNT 0TmDXhMz0sPJqawK5w8nVisje+nRHNcUw8AXKqEt+QpKh+PwEnfF2slGl7jFV6cvJ7rI 5KSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLnCRvFqnPotLbkThjR41+fY/nCIi3KqRJkPQ7Tz5gUL+vzvfNM fAc81qLBjJsEb/WygGzoqgrUlwKw X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos6NazG0wpDxIz0hUuczvsFgj1wqN6o3hlgJVdaqa67j2+vBOCR+Roxyv4AH0d7yctUKa+ODA== X-Received: by 10.36.71.83 with SMTP id t80mr10786883itb.48.1513402715095; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.4.2.238] ([14.102.72.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v62sm4238405iod.83.2017.12.15.21.38.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:38:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] Doc/check-ref-format: clarify information about @{-N} syntax To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git mailing list References: <20171214123027.9105-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> From: Kaartic Sivaraam Message-ID: <641984aa-40b1-fde1-cafd-af109fa486bb@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:08:26 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cyberoam-smtpxy-version: 1.0.6.3 X-Cyberoam-AV-Policy: default X-CTCH-Error: Unable to connect local ctasd Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 14 December 2017 11:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > > Looks alright. > > It was made unnecessarily harder to review because it was marked as > 2/2, even though this no longer applies on top of the copy of 1/2 > that was merged some time ago. Sorry about that but I don't remember doing anything that made it not to apply on top of 1/2. (I just amended my changes to my topic branch. It can be found at [1]) > I needed to find that it was rebased > on top of 'master'; I don't remember doing any rebase on top of 'master'. My topic was (and still is) based on the 'master' when it was pointing at 89ea799ff (Sync with maint, 2017-11-15). Anyways, it's my mistake as I didn't specify the branch on which I based this. Sorry about that. > > Also re-wrapping the lines only to squeeze in "but be cautious..." > and replace s/branch/checkout/ in a few places did not help to make > it easy to spot what's changed. > I expected this would happen but I thought the line shouldn't grew too much so that they have to re-wrapped. Seems it would have been better if I did the re-wrapping as a follow-up commit (didn't strike me then). > This part looked a bit strange. > >> +it can be used as a valid branch name e.g. when creating a new branch >> +(but be cautious when using the previous checkout syntax; it may refer >> +to a detached HEAD state). The rule `git check-ref-format --branch > > I think "e.g. when creating a new branch" is a parenthetical remark, > so it should be inside parenthesis. It was. I brought them out to introduce the parenthetical warning. I'll send a v5 by putting the remark back inside parantheses and bringing the warning out. If it's not ok, let me know. I'll also try to do the re-wrapping as a separate cleanup patch. > As the last three lines in the > new text (quoted above) already warns that it may not be a branch name, > I am not sure if the "but be cautious" adds much value, though. > That warning was for the impatient readers, who might want to find quick answers as to why they saw an odd behaviour (check-ref-froamt --branch not failing for a commit object name) (or) those who would want to use 'check-ref-format --branch' but do not find time to read the whole paragraph.