On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Â- the fix in sg/completion-updates is less likely to be broken by >>> Â future changes in the bashcompinit library. >> >> How exactly? > > Because there remains the possibility that functions from bashcompinit > will make use of the $words variable. ÂI have said this about three > times. ÂIt is not very likely, assuming the zsh developers want to keep > supporting that fix (and I think they should), but the chance is there. And I even wrote a test to show you that's not the case: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/172963 Now, can you modify my test to explain how *exactly* zsh folks can screw my patch up? >>> Â- this fix is conceptually simpler. ÂIn a way, the fix in >>> Â sg/completion-updates only works by accident. >> >> You are missing other advantages: > > Sorry, I should have prefaced the above with "in my opinion". ÂAnd to > be clear, I am not saying this fix should not be applied; I am just > explaining the trade-offs as I understand them. > > The reason I asked for another opinion is that I find it hard to be > objective in this case, because of another consideration I didn't > mention: each moment I have been spending on this is an exercise in > frustration. Well, don't :) Just ask yourself this question: is the patch good enough? If not, send your own version. Personally I think the latest version of the patch clearly explains what it is doing, and why. It even has comments on the code, which the other alternative doesn't. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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