On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Duy Nguyen wrote: >> The short/long naming is the least I worry about. We could add long >> names to pretty specifiers. The thing about the last attempt is, you >> add some extra things on top elsewhere, but format_commit_item code >> may need to be aware of those changes, which are not obvious when >> sombody just focuses on format_commit_item. Having all specifiers in >> one place would be better (hence no hooks, no callbacks) because we >> get a full picture. And yes we need to deal with specifers that make >> no sense in certain context. > > Yeah, it would certainly be nice to have all the format-specifiers > that one unified parser acts on, but isn't this just a matter of > refactoring? Shouldn't we be starting with cheap callbacks, get > things working, and guard against regressions in the refactoring phase > first? How else do you propose to start out? I prefer a series merged to master is a complete change. If refactoring is needed, it should be done as part of the series as well. Two reasons: - We might overlook something. The best way to avoid missing is finish and verify it. - A promise to do things later could happen really late, or never happens. As you are sastisfied with the functionality you have less motivation to clean the code. Meanwhile the maintainer takes extra maintenance cost. -- Duy -- 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