From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git log filtering Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:09:22 -0800 Message-ID: <7vps8l65fh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <68948ca0702070841m76817d9el7ce2ec69835c50e@mail.gmail.com> <7v64ad7l12.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Don Zickus , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 07 22:09:45 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HEu2i-0006uF-K7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:09:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422753AbXBGVJY (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:09:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422756AbXBGVJY (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:09:24 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.241.41]:61869 "EHLO fed1rmmtao105.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422753AbXBGVJX (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:09:23 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070207210922.TXTR1302.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:09:22 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id Ll9N1W00g1kojtg0000000; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:09:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:03:05 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> This is very tempting but, ... hmmmm... > > I would actually prefer to have it be some marker on the expression > itself. > > We already do that '^' handling by hand for "author"/"committer" things. > We could do other things like that. > > Although I guess the downside of not doing standard regexps would be too > big. > > Linus We could go pcre and let you say "(?i)". That would all be post 1.5.0, though.