From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greened@obbligato.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Use %B for Split Subject/Body Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:40:23 -0600 Message-ID: <87d2xglzzc.fsf@waller.obbligato.org> References: <1357012655-24974-1-git-send-email-greened@obbligato.org> <1357012655-24974-2-git-send-email-greened@obbligato.org> <7va9ssa94l.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87wqvwfsfm.fsf@waller.obbligato.org> <7vehi477er.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Techlive Zheng To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 08 11:41:34 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TsWcc-00005t-N9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:41:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755860Ab3AHKlJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:41:09 -0500 Received: from li209-253.members.linode.com ([173.255.199.253]:51720 "EHLO johnson.obbligato.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755707Ab3AHKlH (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:41:07 -0500 Received: from c-75-73-20-8.hsd1.mn.comcast.net ([75.73.20.8] helo=waller.obbligato.org) by johnson.obbligato.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TsWjl-0003l4-8n; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:48:54 -0600 In-Reply-To: <7vehi477er.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:30:52 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) X-Filter-Spam-Score: () X-Filter-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "johnson.obbligato.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Junio C Hamano writes: > The question was about the lossage of the blank line, which does not > seem to be related to what this patch wants to do. Ah, missed that. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [s Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > The question was about the lossage of the blank line, which does not > seem to be related to what this patch wants to do. Ah, missed that. >>>> -# 25 >>>> +#25 >>> >>> Why the lossage of a SP? >> >> I think this got fixed later in the series. > > That is not a good excuse to introduce breakages in the first place, no? Oh, I agree. I wasn't making excuses. :) >>> It may make sense to lose these "# num" that will have to be touched >>> every time somebody inserts new test pieces in the middle, as a >>> preparatory step before any of these patches, by the way. That will >>> reduce noise in the patches for real changes. >> >> Yeah, I know, but it makes it really easy to find a test when something >> goes wrong. > > That is what "tXXXX-*.sh -i" is for, isn't it? Oh, I didn't know about that! -David