Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> My main argument against that would be that if we are planning on
> changing it to something totally different right now anyway, your patch
> will just end up making textual conflicts for Junio to resolve. :)
Right. I hoped you'd come up with a patch yourself, which now happend,
so, thank you. :-)
> Yeah, sorry to come in late to the discussion. I missed the other thread
> entirely. I think getting rid of {M,N} is fine. In general, your
> proposed replacement is better. It's just that in this case it seemed to
> be obfuscating a subtle point that the original syntax (as ugly and
> incomprehensible as it was) called out.
>
> So yes, go ahead with your coding guidelines patch. I'll summarize what
> Jonathan and I discussed with a new patch.
In that case the v2 [1] is still a valid review target, thanks.
ÅtÄpÃn
[1] Earlier in the thread and here for anyone interested:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/160733
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html