Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] git-web--browse: avoid the use of eval

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 19, 2011, 18:34 UTC
Message-ID: <20110919183408.GB26115@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1316424415-11156-1-git-send-email-judge.packham@gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:26:55PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Using eval causes problems when the URL contains an appropriately
> escaped ampersand (\&). Dropping eval from the built-in browser
> invocation avoids the problem.
> 
> Cc: peff@peff.net
> Cc: chriscool@tuxfamily.org
> Cc: jepler@unpythonic.net

Although other projects do use "cc" in the commit message, I think we don't usually bother adding this noise in the git project. The cc headers in your email are enough.

> I've replaced my tests With the test suggested by Peff (should I be
> giving him credit in the copyright line or something?).

For a minor bit of help, usually mentioning the person in the commit message (with a "Helped-by", or indicating which parts they contributed to) is plenty. Personally, I don't even care much about that. My contributions to git are thoroughly documented in the commit history and the mailing list at this point. :)

I also find the "Copyright ..." lines in the files to be overkill, too. They end up becoming out-of-date as other people work on the file. The commit history is the best way to get the right answer, and a comment in the file is at best redundant with what's there. But that is just my opinion; I don't know that we have a particular policy for such things[1].

-Peff

[1] Once upon a time, I think I saw the advice that every file should have a copyright notice and mention the license at the top of the file, but I don't know that it has ever been tested in court. I suppose the distributed tarballs of a particular version would lack the copyright attribution, but in that case, my solution would be to generate it from the commit history at packaging time.