Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] git-web--browse: avoid the use of eval
- From
Chris Packham <judge.packham@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 20, 2011, 09:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4E78572E.6030105@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110919183408.GB26115@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 20/09/11 06:34, Jeff King wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:26:55PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > >> 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.
That's more for git send-email's benefit than anything else. I'm working on a laptop with a touchpad (and a cat) so the less switching between editor and MUA the better. Any better suggestions for tracking Cc's for git send-email?
Show 24 quoted lines
>> 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 They end up becoming out-of-date as other people work on the file.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.
The example in t/README has has a copyright notice which is why I put one in but I don't consider the test (or the fix itself) to actually be copyrightable. If I wasn't creating a new file I wouldn't have bothered putting anything in (other than the testcase).