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=-4.3 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 CDA0920989 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:24:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752378AbcJJSYF (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:24:05 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54430 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751691AbcJJSYF (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:24:05 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40BC43DD3; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:24:03 -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=h7gtGbNZKsCPOcDnRvs331s55MA=; b=Jtl1u/ ZnjQJbm0+83nFS950+rL84QGApGWNPG2oLVdr5T20ZhqqJYDZgyYFMpFTbV8BnVS gsK66H3eoR3jnyVTmEroE2Ct7v6fxOosQf3ZpZODRnciymOM+Yod5UYDqcUfoZ+D hSyfdjGRx7TV3zJFjuRq6sipdz4Gojqs0J+i8= 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=BU+9XP/eiuOU+5IsJD3Cj8OoXmzLLTCF KbgVSDlxgxpaOh/Gwa/ed4yPcbCu4FnZzsZ749ZgqXnKtWki2fsvX/rWz5QjQlb2 BoNSfRivYKSf0CN5lRL4ggfnhn8MRkW6ri8uu1IZ+8RpughgJwxiidH3Pb95Mzub 0R3e7hv3uIk= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC80A43DD2; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:24:03 -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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DA2B43DD1; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:24:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Heiko Voigt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean up confusing suggestion for commit references References: <20161007095638.GA55445@book.hvoigt.net> <20161007143200.qw77pdsymbdmjhbw@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:24:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20161007143200.qw77pdsymbdmjhbw@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:32:01 -0400") 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: B8CE3786-8F16-11E6-9363-5F377B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:56:38AM +0200, Heiko Voigt wrote: > >> The description for referencing commits looks as if it is contradicting >> the example, since it is itself enclosed in double quotes. Lets use >> single quotes around the description and include the double quotes in >> the description so it matches the example. >> --- >> Sorry for opening this up again but I just looked up the format and was >> like: "Umm, which one is now the correct one..." >> >> For this makes more sense. What do others think? > > Looking over the threads, I wasn't sure there was consensus[1,2]. So it would > be equally correct to drop the quotes from the example. > > I dunno. I am in favor of no-quotes, myself, so maybe I am just > manufacturing dissent in my mind. :) I no longer have preference either way myself, even though I was in favor of no-quotes simply because I had an alias to produce that format and was used to it.