Re: [PATCH 3/7] t4026: test "normal" color

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

 



On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:53:56AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > If the user specifiers "normal" for a foreground color, this

Argh, s/specifiers/specifies/

> > We also check that color "-1" does the same thing. This is
> > not documented, but has worked forever, so let's make sure
> > we keep supporting it.
> 
> YLNTED, really?  I do not object to the conclusion, but I am
> mildly surprised ;-)

I was surprised by it, too, when writing the refactoring patch that
comes next in the series. :)

I was also surprised that we further check that "-2" is _not_ valid in
the tests.  I do not mind declaring everything negative to be the same
(either invalid, or "normal"), but I decided that there was really no
benefit to breaking compatibility in this case. And I suppose if you are
using 256-color mode, then "-1 255" is perhaps a natural way to write
it.

-Peff
--
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]