Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
...
quoted
I'd love to share the enthusiasm, but find that "as we can see" needs a
much more clarification.
Jonathan already described it:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/170665
And this snipped demonstrates it:
...
When I say "needs more clarification" during a review, I am not asking the
contributor to explain it in the discussion thread to _me_ who happen to
be asking at that moment. I am asking the contributor to explain it to
people who will read "git log" output 6 months down the road.
You have been here long enough to know that "Jonathan already described
it" that is not connected in the commit that is going to be recorded is
not something we appreciate, no?
In any case, the message of Jonathan's
Subject: [RFC/PATCH] completion: avoid "words" as variable name for zsh portability
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:40:34 -0500
Message-ID: <20110427064033.GB4226@elie>
seems to explain it better. The naming of variables and other details
might need to be settled, but other than that is it correct to understand
that we will see a final version along the line of that patch?
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
...
quoted
I'd love to share the enthusiasm, but find that "as we can see" needs a
much more clarification.
Jonathan already described it:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/170665
And this snipped demonstrates it:
...
When I say "needs more clarification" during a review, I am not asking the
contributor to explain it in the discussion thread to _me_ who happen to
be asking at that moment. I am asking the contributor to explain it to
people who will read "git log" output 6 months down the road.
You have been here long enough to know that "Jonathan already described
it" that is not connected in the commit that is going to be recorded is
not something we appreciate, no?
How is one supposed to know when the clarification is sufficient or
not? Are you advocating communication through git patches?
I prefer to discuss in the mailing list, and when there's consensus
fire 'git send-email', that's what they do in lkml.
In any case, the message of Jonathan's
Subject: [RFC/PATCH] completion: avoid "words" as variable name for zsh portability
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:40:34 -0500
Message-ID: <20110427064033.GB4226@elie>
seems to explain it better. The naming of variables and other details
might need to be settled, but other than that is it correct to understand
that we will see a final version along the line of that patch?
I prefer something short, and to the point:
---
git-completion: fix zsh support
Support for zsh was broken on commit da48616f1d[1], due to the fact
that 'words' is a is a special variable used by zsh completion[2].
Jonathan Nieder found that 'typset -h' resets that special behavior,
which is exactly what we want. So alias the currently used 'local' to
that.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/170665
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.shells.zsh.devel/22484
---
--
Felipe Contreras