Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Indeed. While it might be nice to settle upon a single punctuation > style for these messages, I don't see this as a requirement of the > patch in question. It could, of course, be re-rolled as a two-patch > series in which the second patch addresses the exclamation points, but > fixing the punctuation could also be done later as a follow-up patch > by someone (it doesn't need to be you). So, I don't see a good reason > to hold up the current patch which stands nicely on its own. I would agree in general, especially for a patch that fixes some behaviour that hurts people *and* does a clean-up while at it, that it is OK that the secondary "clean-up" part does not do as through job as it should. But isn't the premise of this particular patch "these 'already up-to-date' messages puzzle readers by being sligntly different, when the differences are not meant to convey anything, so let's unify them and make them more coherent to help readers and translators", is it? I think that was why "Yeeah!" was removed, for example. Now we were made aware of the presence of "Already up to date" vs "Already up to date!" by the "grep" tool. Leaving half the grep hits unaddressed makes the patch look like stopping halfway the task it started to do. So, in this particular case, I do not agree with any of the "two-patch" or "follow-up" or "somebody else can do so". Thanks.
