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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FA11F463 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727454AbfLTSVZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:21:25 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:54565 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727425AbfLTSVY (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:21:24 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C310899295; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:21:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9Xe55IbJQ4Op65i6WsmlUk+8u8E=; b=N+/oK0 2Y/gYWa/F8W/VuFQn4M2kH/LNRdPHKcneYw3vwQhCAB+SXdxqhspTtHmwzII8y/D kGLxaOExdSL8fFkOuP76Yn9vWAxw9O3SUb/j/YOFabn6KJmfVMkKnQ24o4+Lrazu uxNNy27/kSxhwCpMGuYSnjFiBDiMLRewgE2qI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=A2oleweJgeA5cqbwywXLb/gUk0NeyeUs M7SG49WRhxuOo0JcB6+Mj8PiGZoJ4g77b5nRFD5qW4U2nLFarC9IFOjK17e0nn61 CQ5cxXJRzH8E60gKCnN0K8xk2Gl7Q2viIFK27ymq3Zj+P0lkC+U3L+8UOycUHBki jlTi1v7C6d0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD9D99294; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:21:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E20C999293; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:21:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Ed Maste , git mailing list , Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , Eric Wong Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sparse-checkout: improve OS ls compatibility References: <20191219015833.49314-1-emaste@FreeBSD.org> <20191220153814.54899-1-emaste@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:21:17 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:34 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 85095B70-2355-11EA-936D-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > anomalous behavior is still present. It would be helpful, therefore, > to mention such an implementation by name: > > ...some 'ls' implementations, such as on FreeBSD, include... > > (One can, of course, always argue that the commit message can be > consulted to learn about a particular 'ls' implementation, but then > why have an in-code comment at all?) "This is similar to ls" is not all that important, especially if we then need to say how different from "ls" ours is. The log message that describes why we needed to move away from "ls" is a good place to say what aspect of "ls" was unsuitable. If we _were_ to add an in-code comment, we may want to say something like # Do not replace this with "cd "$1" && ls", as FreeBSD "ls" # enables "-A" when run by root without being told, and ends # up including ".git" etc. in its output. to warn future developers against improving and/or cleaning up. Not that we encourage running our tests as root, though. I am slightly worried that the above phrasing might be taken as such.