Re: [PATCH] diff: add ruby funcname pattern

> "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>  
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> so I'll wait for a few days to hear any one of the
>>> following happen before deciding what to do with this patch:
>>>
>>> (1) Yeah, this is a sufficient and necessary set of keywords, and it
>>>    would make my Ruby life so much better;
>>>
>>> (2) This might be a good start but you need to cover this and that
>>>    keywords as well;
>>>
>>> (3) This will misidentify a line that is not the beginning of a
>>>    definition, and should not be applied;
>>>
>>> Needless to say, "Here is a better patch" is appreciated if  
>>> somebody says
>>> (2) or (3).
>>
>> I wasn't sure about the completeness of the regexp myself, which is
>
> Well, I forgot to say but the above was soliciting third party review;
> original submitter does not count ;-)
>
> ... nah, I am just joking.
>
> All of the things you said in the message I am responding to are good
> background information.  It would have been nicer if it were part of  
> the
> initial message, perhaps below the three dash lines, which would have
> avoided this extra exchange.

> Thanks again for the patch.  Somewhere I heard that there are 10  
> Rubyista
> git users for every non Rubyista git user, so I am sure somebody would
> comment on your patch in a day or two.  Perhaps we might even get  
> Python
> and Perl hunk patterns (although I suspect Perl people are happy  
> with the
> default one we stole from GNU diff) to go with it ;-).