Hi Junio, On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Jean-Noël Avila <jn.av...@free.fr> writes: > >> > >> > Le 20/07/2017 à 20:57, Junio C Hamano a écrit : > >> >> > >> >> + git diff --quiet HEAD && git diff --quiet --cached > >> >> + > >> >> + @for s in $(LOCALIZED_C) $(LOCALIZED_SH) $(LOCALIZED_PERL); \ > >> > > >> > Does PRIuMAX make sense for perl and sh files? > >> > >> Not really; I did this primarily because I would prefer to keep > >> things consistent, anticipating there may be some other things we > >> need to replace before running gettext(1) for other reasons later. > > > > It would add unnecessary churn, too, to add those specific exclusions and > > make things inconsistent: the use of PRItime in Perl or shell scripts > > would already make those scripts barf. And if it is unnecessary churn... > > let's not do it? > > Sorry, but I cannot quite tell if you are in favor of limiting the > set of source files that go through the sed substitution (because we > know PRIuMAX is just as nonsensical as PRItime in perl and shell > source), or if you are in favor of keeping the patch as-is (because > changing the set of source files is a churn and substitutions would > not hurt)? I was in favor of keeping the simplest strategy: simply cover all files, including Perl and Unix shell scripts. It would not bring any benefit to exclude them. Ciao, Dscho
