From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2012, #01; Sun, 3) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:19:54 -0700 Message-ID: <7v8vfri0xx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vr4twudqm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vbokwmifp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vmx4baaqc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v7gvdaogr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 13 19:20:09 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SerEf-0003Ye-W1 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:20:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754204Ab2FMRT5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:19:57 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:38318 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753719Ab2FMRT5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:19:57 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222218097; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:19:56 -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=xtOAMFYPmAzcpPiOLJlCMxZ2Dk4=; b=sorNnF KTsZsOiRhHAXq/nLVsJVITvhpSikIQAjql1Rm/Cg/V+3O5u92+lFJrfMQvly68kA YSINahR5zpgbX/CiPKSLRuWC4H/2HquBoPj5bgUxhN0MBa+vtP/pFKgxMaAoiu9I v9sChxc82D3DcCQY2Z2Jef8WmFxF/h+PxRVCI= 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=XdlFPoKo9Z4byujkTnMoRftpoAXdWtNW 1teX2GQaTfNTdzK4O+t3VgCfeu/3obHWMs1nc8LTfU0/wJBwydd9wr6QO8Aepo4n Lt8Jfa7VU+GR2G1Db+G4SwQaDbbj3cD2uWb4jVJTdKGpsATEDXowISJiPrVnjrc7 iKc2oGBysvM= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F2D8096; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [98.234.214.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93CAB8095; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:19:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Felipe Contreras's message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:55:41 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FEAC9F0A-B57B-11E1-9A89-FC762E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Felipe Contreras writes: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> You say I'm being irresponsible, I say you are being preoccupied by a >>> theoretical problem that will not occur, and would not cause any >>> problems if it does. >> >> See how the two implementations are different > > They are not. > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=contrib/completion/git-completion.bash;h=13690eaecb4d8fafa67b79d33e804e6f8c64d742;hb=refs/heads/pu#l37 > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh;h=29b1ec9eb1797e0f2c3c9f7067222432150ba85f;hb=refs/heads/pu#l54 > > Where is the difference? Look at your patch that introduces the separate file af31a45 (completion: split __git_ps1 into a separate script, 2012-05-22) instead. The extra $GIT_DIR one in git-completion.sh bba88ea (completion: respect $GIT_DIR, 2012-05-09) is on another topic that is stalled and waiting for a reroll. And your message brings things back to my exact point. Unlike the other topic, the topic fc/git-prompt-script we have been discussing is almost ready except for this nit. If we make it graduate to 'master' without doing anything about the other commit, we will have two different versions from day one. And the worst part of the story is that you are not just placing the burden of noticing and having to worry about these things on other people (in this case, me), but are actively sabotaging the effort to make future mistakes less likely to happen by endlessly bitching and refusing to admit that there is a problem. It seems that it is too difficult for you to admit that you were wrong and say "Yes there is a problem, and among the three approaches you suggested, this is the least intrusive one" or "Yes there is a problem, but I do not like any of the approaches you suggested, so I propose this alternative that is much less intrusive than any of them", and until that happens I do not see a point in talking with you at all.