Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 10:00 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > I am not so sure that we are searching for them, to be honest (who >> > are we in this context anyway?) >> > Imagining HTML could be used in plain-text, > > <strike> I think I misinterpreted your sentence in one of the other > mails (found below), </strike> Sorry for that sloppy sentence. More > correctly, the "we" in that context is the same as the "we" in the > context of the text quoted below, > >> That sounds like a sample that is there not because it would be >> useful, but because we couldn't think of any useful example. >> > > Link to the post that has the quoted text, > http://public-inbox.org/git/%3Cxmqqy3s7nbkm.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3E/ I honestly do not see your point. Yes, I said that the change indicates that there is no useful example found (so far). That does not necessarily mean that we must find a useful example so that we can keep this sample script, which now became useless, alive. I am questioning the assumption that it helps users to have a sample for prepare-commit-msg shipped with our source, and I suspect that it may no longer be true. If the sole purpose of finding a useful example is to keep the sample script alive, when the sample script is no longer a useful thing to ship, then it does sound like "a solution looking for a problem", no?
