From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838BA1F670 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 16:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238654AbiCGQNe (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:13:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54092 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237070AbiCGQNc (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:13:32 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA7EF1F for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:12:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1646669550; bh=RX7lQP8BRSH6LvUHZsbazQQVge5uEXeZX3I1YXWvDgI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=jlLmBQuBWJEivRzWuVDhumVNn+zNvBxqQzXk4LC5jE3NBPu8oTKWrL53R1nBxfDzv 7mE+spZAt48/a1j/HKXHNa/Wz1Ekaw5UIJ7uH6TnjC0blM5JR+DSC5ZSLtPPK95gP6 Z7R6g8UQHVoqMMIcyDSZnQrCO5IaNWOzzwBjNZgQ= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.28.129.168] ([89.1.214.47]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MhD6g-1o4SLP41uU-00eHwY; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 17:12:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 17:12:28 +0100 (CET) From: Johannes Schindelin X-X-Sender: virtualbox@gitforwindows.org To: Abhradeep Chakraborty cc: Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=86var_Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0_Bjarmason?= , Eric Sunshine , git Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] parse-options.c: add style checks for usage-strings In-Reply-To: <20220304142154.2350-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20220304142154.2350-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:iOv1blWhZcfPwZvZ/kRWd1OMKjK6iux4R0Eoeqqrd9XnPWZp7bO z79D3alRf0KcYwN3WEykvIRqnfWOp4UcdLRW/hj1wKW86DcsWCi7V8LIyz3YNnqi1EYbrWt Vo/fRxboXnEJO/HcKa2/mkKiCc3JCZh3vanjh3Bans0UZBg5XJBI+x8iJFsfwqM3rpf+M76 COomi3eUr7w8sDx/IKWWA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:+CJdX9cjRLs=:+gpmFWepbYnAJRtENqlWCu ZZPUdHMhCq4+U/hpE3ob0keKfJ0GxYeQ/wAucygBGRnLMylzIaZTsolRHVsyxrdoyvnDD6d0s qgWfmTRHDDP3zP9VfSu5H2zBdA4U3mH/YOcEM8EE5oHsW6oF5B3QnOFrZs5dn5fYjB/p3Kfgc aNdUojp1E95bg0mfUZnd44ck8ynR0OXaxymiJgpGxG7+n+DLdvSS2DsVhPaggcUvuN72O8pJp alxO2yov5+LkotZtbl8YDa9suXCiiOOLhfHfvhSfTEj1uVz1T0UPvRuo+IPh2NqwJzsibPp0N R4XacACWcsLhPuVdS2+JTbWx60PcogkSN0ivXD/w5OUF+g/r77M33/Va8YZUyrGDC4ZDZCk61 mAnwXTdF3vl8sh9YykdsoBXFnzNHNY79P1Td4lb/5Kz/v207QOUu35bgs5if6hxFyLsPXQfu4 xYFkrXLjQ6XJ20Px0tPNurBmzpD2/X+qiUXP/0T431teLP/kkWCHklIMz1bVsD0Khe8cWoxH+ +YruSdCYTqcbno2nQCP9jQYAp+hu+79+4vTuqOTK3gMO/XcaalN1Y31ly84n8DGnsmMaylriV 3nhQfq5QRr/hOrdAB6B0T47e3sJxiRbfoWocvgD77RzvvUDAV0WK4CzA04Y/Nxvb5bC3oywGv Epqmoget8EobAghU5hMEyc1nEBoHqKSzpWthJPX3y8qzqyqALg9y4A99daL1UCFc1jbqk+5qD DjDK0lHFaNCndJLXyDy6nJcCynu1c5VJKTj2lwpb/hVUDaMPwK7Ck+1J/w3K+yArWnsuzLJ/9 iXeGo+b0e1JZTnlmKF1IEi40+beCxtiuyyMbbXdDFDHTzWfpTxMTBasPYKwS3YoZA+djoLc0/ R8FQCxwKBpOjweuhJ09+DOIKBWJs+wlfOp1IFaZi1wCu32cIbZrIjM4u+Ll9I6F/+i+PY1SuH nWvUpPRNnHl+Mpb888F2a1HoxWwvarQ4aJIk0PQjtXnviPLWB6qlPwCHqvzZnWRdOZpdorFKw yePV9lYPlpQujN/spF2z1lkutOTdYj0s00z/30Fdp/lCVpScaJq5pLfkEtImJP2/XIk6AGtS2 5TEwBWVds1Ghs0= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Abhradeep Chakraborty wrote: > Junio C Hamano < wrote: > > > Yup, if we can have static and dynamic checks of the same quality, > > static checks are always better alternative. In this case, runtime > > check would probably be an expedite solution suitable for a shorter > > term to fill the gap, as a static check with the same quality as it > > would probably need some time to develop. > > Got it! While the runtime check would address the concern in the short run, paving the path for future static checks revolving around the same area will pay off quite happily. > > I do not have any particular interest. If it is a tool fit for the > > task, it would be good to use it, that's all ;-) > > Okay, then I would like to research if that is a good fit. Johannes > is pretty confident about it though. Yes, he is. And he wishes he had the time to work on it himself because it sounds like a really fun (if challenging) project. In other words: If you ever get stuck somewhere along the lines, please do push up a work-in-progress branch and reach out here so that I or others can help. Ciao, Dscho