From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F76C433E0 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:53:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C1F206B6 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:53:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="OV+Let+B" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729829AbgGFSxT (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:53:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:53457 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729733AbgGFSxT (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:53:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151B464784; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:53:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=6PXWEDbrp8ej/j/r8E/wRAAd0hs=; b=OV+Let +BnuacHQMWs3Rb3LXl4uj6Qak+E/P/D/JmxUgsLTNIhSYbJ8XJM14DzTCMG5x3CA zCBDjDlEQ7GlhLnBh09C55ooj61DCPTcD6G7HEn1z1c3BB8aiDt17cOK7i4+037p MmXCRtRsMNsFtxUtv0fuoSaF8WXNalDxn+yJI= 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=lyYMBvVLjjZvS1s/QF8TCe0D2X+1Gnhy kvwwX++mA1CXsalk3JBjGIotyoiup2I4YVOBxHbOsrWAo+JrNhVVwEiSpqVml2Wz oJGVXCGMSq36OhNCyO/6RaszR7jefno2E7xT7gXnK6YwFJJ8+vLJCkEv4jswvNYn EKN8MfVGSEo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0997C64782; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:53:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D18864781; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:53:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Han-Wen Nienhuys Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys , Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH v19 03/20] checkout: add '\n' to reflog message References: <125695ce92218ca2ddb9868880db542acb0d2a79.1593457018.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 11:53:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:56:41 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F394AD82-BFB9-11EA-A7C2-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:22 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> In any case, a patch that moves the existing "squash SPs and rtrim" >> cleansing from the files backend to the generic layer may look like >> the attached patch. We can add reftable backend on top of a change >> like this one and then we do not have to worry about each backend >> cleansing the incoming reflog messages the same way. Nice? > > Yes, very nice! Will you merge this, or should I make this part of > the reftable series? > The reftable code already has normalization for reflog messages, so it > doesn't really make a difference; either way is fine. It probably fits well in the "to prepare the existing code to support any new backend" series you have split out of the reftable series and sent separately earlier, not even "part of the reftable series", I think. With something like that, you may even be able to drop the custom reflog message munging from reftable proper, just like the whole point of the patch you are responding was to drop the custom munging from the files backend. Thanks.