Re: [PATCHv2] gitweb: Better regexp for SHA-1 committag match

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, demerphq wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> It would unfortunately falsely match... but we cannot eliminate this
>>>> case (well, at least not checking if hexnumber is followed by dot),
>>>> because of totally legitimate
>>>>
>>>>    ... at commit 8457bb9e.
>>>>
>>>> So even with that we would have still false matches...
>>>
>>> Yeah, so what's the value in v2 over v1?  It is still wrong but it is less
>>> wrong than it used to be?  I think the word-boundary one made a good
>>> sense.  I do not see the @lookahead adding much value at all.
>>
>> Right. So v2 is less useful that I thought it to be; and adding further
>> "exceptions" doesn't seem like a good idea.  The 'msgid' committag
>> when/if it gets implemented would help there...
>>
>> So please take v1, as it is sane improvement and generic enough.
> 
> If you make it configurable then everybody can be happy right?

That are the long term plans, to implement generic 'committags' support
(which would include current SHA-1 and signoff committags).

BTW. it is the 'configurable' part that makes it difficult... ;-)
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux