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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 4519D1F858 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933973AbcKNS4S (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:56:18 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59419 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932899AbcKNS4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:56:17 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DAB4FF26; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:56:15 -0500 (EST) 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=cjC69hPzenM/mGmcmCG0Xk7K9F8=; b=e9e9yj PcOv7VVn2zLb/G0fk4vA70vEpOaQQqRXFJZpHkIblKIukNpowlUQTLn1j7p+wbmA PISkX4ntYz7Kalw0XWKR5NlpE/+7Zd+kQfl9XiAvJx1xMbxJJlmiGbWlYbmxc6tC IzLSZwMxar0Z5mad4RJKmm1IkcFx7Su+7HQ/U= 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=sZxzxN01veRWWk5uNg6ujR6LPpxojY3N E6fJ/IXI5XJPinzJ55kYEfGeXzUofWlupMK5oPeaiF3kET14B/tNNN0dDEsrfhax NXrXJrj4nO7zaiLB6nc0ZQGsnA5uX+qbu9gt3elDmQ/Lf/GRuR3DPAvH3MmekgE6 ckaGBUB3UgM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1EE4FF25; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5400F4FF24; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:56:15 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, sbeller@google.com, Brandon Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] grep: enable recurse-submodules to work on objects References: <1477953496-103596-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com> <1478908273-190166-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com> <1478908273-190166-6-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:56:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:44:25 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 04CDFD2E-AA9C-11E6-B617-987C12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >>> to: >>> HEAD:file >>> HEAD:sub/file >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams >>> --- >> >> Unrelated tangent, but this makes readers wonder what the updated >> trailer code would do to the last paragraph ;-). Does it behave >> sensibly (with some sane definition of sensibleness)? >> >> I am guessing that it would, because neither To: or HEAD: is what we >> normally recognize as a known trailer block element. > > Yes, it behaves sensibly :-) because "Signed-off-by:" is preceded by a > blank line, so the trailer block consists only of that line. Oh, that was not what I was wondering. Imagine Brandon writing his message that ends in these three questionable lines and then running "commit -s --amend" to add his sign-off---that was the case I was wondering.