Re: [PATCH v2] completion: remote set-* <name> and <branch>
- From
SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
- Date
- Feb 22, 2012, 00:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120222001737.GB2228@goldbirke>
- In-Reply-To
- <1329861274-21418-1-git-send-email-philip@foolip.org>
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:54:34PM +0100, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Complete <name> only for set-url. For set-branches and > set-head, complete <name> and <branch> over the network, > like e.g. git pull already does. > > The style used for incrementing and decrementing variables was fairly > inconsistenty and was normalized to use ++x, or ((++x)) in contexts > where the former would otherwise be interpreted as a command. This is a > bash-ism, but for obvious reasons this script is already bash-specific. > > Finally, remove out-of-date documentation for how to submit patches and > (silently) defer to Documentation/SubmittingPatches like all other code. > > Signed-off-by: Philip Jägenstedt <philip@foolip.org> > --- > contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 42 +++++++++++++------------------ > 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash > index 1505cff..9dac084 100755 > --- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash > +++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash > @@ -60,18 +60,6 @@ > # per-repository basis by setting the bash.showUpstream config > # variable. > # > -# > -# To submit patches: > -# > -# *) Read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Um, well... Did you actually read it? I mean the part that talks about making separate commits for logically separate changes? ;) You clearly squashed three separate changes into a single patch.
Your proposed changes to __git_complete_remote_or_refspec() and __git_remote() make sense, modulo the increment/decrement part. I don't have strong preference either way, but please submit those changes in separate patches. Otherwise if ever bisect points to this commit during a hunt for a 'git remote' completion bug, we'll need to think about whether the increment style change or the functional change is causing the trouble.
Thanks, Gábor