Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > 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.
OK. I actually was OK to limit the potential damage to C sources, but it does not matter that much in the bigger picture.
