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=-4.1 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 1DD9320899 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752171AbdHHTnW (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:43:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60716 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752152AbdHHTnV (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:43:21 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB399D696; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:43:13 -0400 (EDT) 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=zfSokOoHn6568KGS/wDQu1YWr3M=; b=KCo+ak Ez6DaE1fn+V9WUxyH48kRXB34F1Kmq63xRXs3sBmdAufiuJE1Ba3aSpAewSu/vOi I3epUSDHCEGxctmLkCf1FAXAVdP6bDN1XSL/6yk2kTUrgKtBfweCFYWQtlyQi05A Wn+oJ0yWlMPFQCAGuq98Qv7Aet1Jw9hMm5CDE= 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=ZcJXM2lt7mpFwLP8nr0q3Zy2igCVKQ0v dW/UsOq+igDAopMK5VP9yiNStLRRU9lxzEs2IY/c8T/SHP5FgP6olI2M0hhNQW8q KqFHG9c4OzO+EiEYA1/8FJNbzYYuQiQ8XwKReCtNxTeX6+vVBZ7Kj5pjpZwW+gbF 99zpjSex450= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E0E9D695; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:43:13 -0400 (EDT) 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 221279D692; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:43:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Kaartic Sivaraam , "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2 / RFC] branch: quote branch/ref names to improve readability References: <20170808171136.31168-1-kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com> <20170808171136.31168-2-kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:43:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:55:43 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D0A246CE-7C71-11E7-BEA0-FE4B1A68708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > (Though wondering for non-submodule users, if they perceive it as > inconsistency as other parts of the code may not follow the rigorous quoting) Do you mean that we may instead want to remove the excessive quoting of branch names and stuff from submodule.c code, because they are newer ones that broke the consistency existed before them (i.e. not quoting)? That certainly is tempting, but I personally find it easier to read a message that marks parts that holds "external data" differently from the message's text, so I think this patch 2/2 goes in the right direction.