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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 A1AB3C433E0 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C2D2253D for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727200AbhADXoj (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:44:39 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51607 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726163AbhADXoj (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:44:39 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D23A40F3; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:43:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=NG/LMkPDGYIlF+ZWYqzD3OHIt 6w=; b=BfLvxs1cMoLwbnLhlxce1b0otokvWuPt76Y/Vkk47D8YT3UQKQ0Somkxs 8/WHGst8hmIVsn+wp/lngqQsu7AYBkNmS6m6D3GkKUC5m1znVnQTQnSJDZAGIcWm xdkm/zBc7u4LfHDeb0QVr5o9tj5EB+7T2zDCpuyNnE+BqW70Vg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=jtT1wzZgvO/z8VSyd4X 1bBI09hya2MPYSZ/qmxaotiCryAFPeGC3zYKDXw64tnKc727KYcz72LnhSHHpFfI jTFETIo8Ag9hKWHIgFmdDhfSB6UBmMpJ0p9appIwi8lFhKd9SPvHlFxihBGSrmC3 NCr2coq38+8y5vesdE37oHqQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29184A40F2; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:43:57 -0500 (EST) (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 AD37EA40F1; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:43:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] CoC: Update word-wrapping to match upstream References: <20201228171734.30038-2-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 15:43:56 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B5F70E0E-4EE6-11EB-8D33-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > When the CoC document was added in 5cdf2301d4a (add a Code of Conduct > document, 2019-09-24) it was added from some 1.4 version of the > document whose word wrapping doesn't match what's currently at [1], > which matches content/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.md in the CoC > repository[2]. > > Let's update our version to match that, to make reading subsequent > diffs easier. ... because a patch going straight to upstream's 2.0 would have to include the three hunks we see here, that would be a noise because the diff between upstream's 1.4 and 2.0 does not touch these places? If so, then this step makes sense to me. > There are no non-whitespace changes here. Not a comment about this patch, but "git show --word-diff" would still show three hunks with no change highlighted as expected. I wonder if the word-diff (or color-words) logic should be further taught to squelch out the hunks that do not change anything other than line wrapping and whitespace fuzz. Thanks.