Hi, On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dirk Süsserott <newsletter@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Johannes Schindelin schrieb: > >> This patch is not meant for inclusion, as indicated by the "TOY > >> PATCH" prefix. > > Yes, I understand it. > > I was not complaining about the "who cares, we will exit after we are > done with this processing anyway" attitude in this code. I think it is > a reasonable approach to take because it is not likely that this > codepath to change and would start wanting to access the original > command table after it did its munging. I was suggesting a positive > improvement to the patch by making it explicitly documented to help > people polish further, that's all. I understood that. However, I simply do not have the time to take care of that. That's why I said it is a toy patch, and I did not mean it for inclusion. It was just a nice time waster for me; it's not even something I'd find terribly useful myself, unless it asked me if I wanted to execute this or that instead (provided that isatty()). > You do not have to be so defensive. I wasn't. At least I did not mean to. Ciao, Dscho
