From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:17:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] completion: remote set-* <name> and <branch>
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:
> 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 Finally, remove out-of-date documentation for how to submit patches and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