From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:20:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add ALL_LDFLAGS to the git target.
Message-ID: <7vbqvqjgvi.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603281500280.15714@g5.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Mark Wooding wrote:
>
>> Jason Riedy <ejr@EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>> 
>> > P.S. For the whole finding-a-function-name business, some of 
>> > us are using git on fixed-format Fortran.  Every non-comment
>> > line begins with whitespace...  ;)  And in free format, many
>> > people don't add that first indentation within subroutines.
>> 
>> Urgh.  So, which regex library do people want to use? ;-)  (My vote's
>> for pcre.)
>
> I'd really just prefer to make the "-p" switch configurable, the way it 
> was before. No regexps, just the same rules as for GNU diff, perhaps with 
> the difference being that it would be on by default.

Strictly speaking, "No regexps" and "same rules as for GNU diff"
are mutually incompatible, since GNU diff -p defaults to
"^[[:alpha:]$_]" but the regexp is configurable.

My preference is to ignore FORTRAN, keep Mark's current rules,
perhaps with a way to turn it off if people really find it
annoying (I do not mind having it always on).

> Another possible approach is to say
>  - if the first line of the real diff matches the rules, do NOT add 
>    another line that matches the rule at the @@-line.
>
> since the simple @@-line rule really doesn't make sense for any file that 
> is "dense" (ie where most lines start with non-whitespace).

I think this is a good rule.  If "the first non-empty line" may
be even better; we do not want to see the name of previous
function for a huke like this:

	@@ -a,b +c,d @@

        int frotz(void)
        {
            ...