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=-4.0 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 13DB320281 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 23:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751195AbdJBXzi (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:55:38 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57785 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750927AbdJBXzh (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:55:37 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54DEB252D; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:55:37 -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=kqWGTrEaxXT0x4s1AzTwAVmhldw=; b=dnJxoj O0HRf6wzX9uZ7L7+TH/uRvGygOqoNozqYlTb4gzDtYXNjAwR+Tw2mm9eqLY/2IFT 0T2isUTIlMXB7XN5srSJBBeg8Gujt/xm34SCWOoLJdHqCVAAwjtnXmVeHbgAhAZC DzrJ2BrESf5aSaqjAUpU9FvrNxtQfdbZ3xB8w= 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=IthJgXz+BV2PjY8bNBZjQiYkJywjCfET hTtmshc1350Jl8Mmrf7fJP6imKgjOl5D0gKsPdn56Tl6iWiFPhc74dqBDrnGXi/B ZFTRqM5ITD09SbOqEr7kvgDGaKHM8KVMf0quBRlVY62Q9GpntcLWMExMA7b/xFRE jZ3LQCsqM6I= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF59B252B; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:55:37 -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 A0816B2460; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:55:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ref-filter.c: pass empty-string as NULL to atom parsers References: <20171002055052.GB10729@D-10-157-251-166.dhcp4.washington.edu> <20171002161034.44867-1-me@ttaylorr.com> <20171002224052.GR19555@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:55:01 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171002224052.GR19555@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:40:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1BF82C52-A7CD-11E7-8D3A-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Nieder writes: > The above does a nice job of explaining > > - what this change is going to do > - how it's good for the internal code structure / maintainability > > What it doesn't tell me about is why the user-facing effect won't > cause problems. Is there no atom where %(atom:) was previously > accepted and did something meaningful that this may break? That is, was there any situation where %(atom) and %(atom:) did two differnt things and their differences made sense? > Looking at the manpage and code, I don't see any, so for what it's > worth, this is > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder > > but for next time, please remember to discuss regression risk in > the commit message, too. Yes, I agree that it is necessary to make sure somebody looked at the issue _and_ record the fact that it happened. Thanks for doing that already ;-) I also took a look at the code and currently we seem to abort, either with "unrecognised arg" (e.g. "refname:") or "does not take args" (e.g. "body"), so we should be OK, I'd think.