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 7005520281 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:42:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751922AbdJDLl7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:41:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59610 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751915AbdJDLl6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:41:58 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A690CA54A4; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:41:57 -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=6PTFU5qlTkOtv3okXk2ZkzDyfHo=; b=fJTTKZ jOXEG4NiQhcjhINT5O+R7dEOZhCoTda+hsn79l7JMZxd0PWuBHinNPHPY5uTu6T2 COtoLJ9RaGrLGfaixC1WcBZGnO6w/US0D7S14MaNsBFtm0C1EZ2YgK5wW+loTdgD LUFiB3OAseh6g0IlICDYp3WpWF4DC5L+VPjL4= 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=Z9kgIu81E7cFgrK0Ws/GJYMbOl3OpNPH 0iu2YRri9qKlOOU+ZHUZykTstEKo3MAiUQESf5OIEg0TVrYU1DgxnGfMt1swmhDt zI1CfUDm/yLcXeQYZ7piq/lGNpe4JK0fi/JY7fW+ojA4EU7fhZNguPOj1b8lD9S1 UZ2PW04jNDY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F392A54A3; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:41:57 -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 1E160A54A2; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:41:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, J Wyman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] for-each-ref: let upstream/push optionally report merge name. References: Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 20:41:55 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 04 Oct 2017 18:12:47 +0900") 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: 06BB862C-A8F9-11E7-AF10-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: >> + if (explicit) >> + *s = xstrdup(merge); >> + else >> + *s = ""; > > Here is the same "who are we trying to help---users who want to know > where their push goes, or users who are debugging where the push > destination is defined?" question. I do not have a strong opinion > either way, but I think giving the end result with fallback (i.e. > not nullifying when the result is not explicit) may be easier to use > by "push" users. Now after thinking about it a bit more, I actually have a moderate preference to doing it the way your patches do. With programatic %(if)%(else)%(end) support we acquired recently, the fallback can be coded in the --format=... language if the user wanted to using the "internal fallbacks, explicit==0, are ignored" behaviour that are implemented by these two patches. The reverse is not true. I think the remaining points from my reviews are: - It would be better to compute precomputable stuff when used atoms are parsed, instead of running starts_with() in these functions; - We want to make sure there is no existing multi-word modifiers (in which case we can safely declare "multi-word" is the way we spell them from now on). Or if there are existing ones, they already spell themselves as "multi-word". I have nothing against "remote-name"; I just want to make sure we are not making things inconsistent. If there are only few (but non zero number of) multi-word modifiers that are not spelled "multi-word", as long as they are only few and their spelling are inferiour (e.g. concatenatedwords is much worse than concatenated-words), we could still declare "multi-word" is the right way to spell them going forward, declare that we will give them synonyms and deprecate the bad spelling out over time, and leave that plan as #leftover bits thing (i.e. not doing the deprecation of these other modifiers as part of this series. The only thing I want to happen in the scope of _this_ series, as due diligence, is to make sure we are happy with "multi-word", and also to know if we need a follow-up work (just yes/no, possibly with plans, but no actual work yet). Thanks.