Re: [PATCH 3/4] revert: simplify insn parsing logic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Junio,

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I suspect that this may be a bit over-engineered, but on the other hand,
> if we do not foresee that we would be adding many other verbs, I do not
> think there is much point in your patch to clean up the verb parsing part,
> either, so...

interesting; yes, it does look a little over-engineered for the
moment.  I should have been clearer in the commit message: this patch
exists mainly so that [4/4] can report a sensible error message
instead of a literal "Missing space after valid verb".  So, we have
four options from here:
1. Squash this part into [4/4].  Will this give rise to additional confusion?
2. Use your version of the patch.
3. Append the following to the commit message: "This patch exists so
that the next patch can report a sensible error message when an
invalid verb is encountered".
4. If you don't think [4/4] is valuable yet, just apply the first two
parts of this series.

I'm personally in favor of (1) now.

Thanks.

    Ram
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]