On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Matthieu Moy >> <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Also does it make sense to integrate these changes here? Or would you like to >>>> have another series on this? >>> >>> To me, the important in this series is to avoid introducing duplicated >>> and inconsistent code, because it would make further refactoring harder. >>> >> >> Would you suggest duplicating whats done with %(align) here? > > I think introducing a function to split according to commas and remove > commas would make sense, but I won't insist on that. Mimicking what's > done with %(align) is acceptable to me: we'll have several instances of > the same pattern, not ideal but easy enough to refactor later. > Especially if you actually plan to work on that :-). > I was planning on working on what Junio and you suggested after this ;-). So I didn't see the need of " introducing a function to split according to commas" if we plan to rewrite the whole parsing part of ref-filter. -- Regards, Karthik Nayak -- 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