Re: [PATCH] whitespace: reorganize initial-indent check
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 16, 2007, 21:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vfxy2jqmq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <B54C9483-90BE-4B45-A3B7-39FACF0E9F62@wincent.com>
Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> El 16/12/2007, a las 4:48, J. Bruce Fields escribi> Reorganize to emphasize the most complicated part of the code (the tab >> case). > > Any chance of either squashing this series into one patch seeing as > its all churning over the same part of the code, or resending it with > numbering? The patches seemed to arrive out of order in my mailbox and > I don't really know what order they're supposed to be applied in and > it's a bit hard to review.
I do not think squashing is necessary or a good idea in this case. As far as I can tell, the series does not have "oops, this fixes the earlier problem I introduced in the series", but it is purely a logical progression. The first one fixes a bug introduced by the 0-base conversion which can and should stand on its own.
The mails were properly threaded with in-reply-to so numbering is not strictly necessary either, but would have helped readers with MUA that do not pay attention to that header.
I already see JBF resent the series, which is very nice of him.