Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 12:39:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>Thanks. Then this patch is still a strict "Meh" to me. >> > i can't really think of a reason why you reject such a no-brainer > other than that you consider it churn. in that case i need to tell you > that you have unreasonable standards, which actively contribute to the > code remaining a mess. An ad-hominem remark is a signal that it is good time to disengage. There are certain style differences that may be acceptable if it were written from the get-go, but it is not worth the patch churn to switch once it is in the tree. This one squarely falls into that category. Bye.
