Hi Junio, On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I however think that the renaming of read_author_script() is totally > backwards from maintainability's point of view. You stated elsewhere that converting a script into a builtin should focus on a faithful conversion. The original code is: . "$author_script" Granted, this *cannot* be converted faithfully without reimplementing a shell interpreter. So I did the next best thing: I converted it into code that reads a block of environment variable settings. What you asked for is totally unreasonable: you ask me to make this conversion *even less faithful*. What is worse: you argue from the "maintainability point of view", when it is pretty obvious that *adding validation that was not there before* can in no way make the code more maintainable, as it *adds new logic*. And what is the worst: over all these discussions about a nothingburger (you simply cannot convince me that I should introduce validating code that has not been there before in the same patch series that simply tries to recreate existing functionality), the most important part of a code review was forgotten: to make sure that the changes are correct. The worst direction a code review can take is to introduce regressions, and that is exactly what happened. Ciao, Johannes