On Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 10:40:30 PM GMT+3, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Thanks for the quick reply, and aplogies for my delayed reply. I replied at the github PR https://github.com/git/git/pull/1750 and didn't realize GitGitGadget doesn't forward it to the list. Then I accidentally sent email with HTML. 3rd time the charm... >> Listing some portability guideline here for future reference. >> >> I'm leaving it to someone else to decide whether to include >> it in the file itself, place is as a new file, or not. > Check Documentation/CodingGuidelines; I think we have something to > say about local var="val" construct to help dash. I wasn't aware of this file, but I should have searched for it before posting. Thanks for the pointer. As far as I can tell CodingGuidelines and my guideline align perfectly on every subject which both mention, down to nuances like that quoted initial value in "local", though each also has few subjects which the other doesn't. > ... If we were rewriting the prompt > scripts to be usable by other shells, great. But then we'd want to > make sure it adheres to existing coding guidelines we have. Not sure how many prompt scripts there are, but if you're referring to the scripts at contrib/completion then only git-prompt.sh is applicable in many shells and would gain by being portable. The others are shell-specific, so I wouldn't think they need be portable. As for git-prompt.sh, as far as I can tell, after this patchset, this file adheres to CodingGuidelines completely as far as correctness and compatibility go. However, regardless of not being aware of CodingGuidelines, the goal of this patchset was to improve compatibility and correctness, and I wouldn't have chosen or felt comfortable to included style changes ("'then' in new line" can have also portability implications, though not in the many shells which I tested). So no change in terms of style, it still diverges from the guidelines. Shall I add a commit which fixes style issues?
