On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 01:57:23AM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote: > I had a look at your patch and even tested it, seems solid, I like how you > integrated all these atoms together under refname_atom_parser_internal(). > I'm squashing this in, for my re-roll. Thanks.
Great, thanks for picking it up. > > So actually, we _do_ accept "%(upstream:short,track)" with your > > patch, which is somewhat nonsensical. It just ignores "short" and > > takes whatever option came last. Which is reasonable, though > > flagging an error would also be reasonable (and I think is what > > existing git does). I don't think it matters much either way. > > > > I think it was decided a while ago that it'd be best to ignore all and > accept the last argument without barfing, I couldn't find the exact > link. But I'm open to both. But if you look at the %(align) atom, > even that accepts mutually exclusive arguments and accepts the last > argument without reporting an error. Makes sense, and I'm fine with how you have it (and my patch tried to retain that property). I just wasn't sure if it was intentional, as I did a bad job of paying attention to earlier rounds of the series. Thank you for keeping at it. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
