Re: [PATCH v3] git-merge: rewrite already up to date message

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: May 2, 2021, 02:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cR0Z=sUPHW8kuMG0sOv4bb309MV=WTR1nMGOoYB+1yfVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACZqfqCXrhUtsC3TLYaw6u7D0VohsBcz10aVxpe-1u8gg77qxQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 9:51 PM Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > I am not sure why this is Co-au, and not the more usual "Helped-by".
>
> If you look at the thread, you'll see that the code in question was
> written by Eric [1]. The only change from it was the addition of
> `void` to the function prototype by me.

Oops, I suppose I've been doing too much Go and C++ lately and am forgetting `void`.

I don't have a strong opinion between Co-authored-by: and Helped-by: in this case. Here's my sign-off if you want to retain Co-authored-by:

    Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>

Show 19 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Actually, not so fast.  The end-users do not care really where the
> > message originates.
> >
> > $ git grep -e 'Already up[- ]to' \*.c
> > maint:builtin/merge.c:          finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date."));
> > maint:builtin/merge.c:                  finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date. Yeeah!"));
> > maint:merge-ort-wrappers.c:             printf(_("Already up to date!"));
> > maint:merge-recursive.c:                output(opt, 0, _("Already up to date!"));
> > maint:notes-merge.c:                    printf("Already up to date!\n");
> >
> > It probably makes sense to replace the exclamation point with a full
> > stop for others, no?
>
> Maybe. I'm not sure what they mean.
>
> I generally try not to do that when I initially approach a project, I
> prefer to get more comfortable w/ it and let it get more comfortable
> w/ me before I make significant change proposals.

Indeed. While it might be nice to settle upon a single punctuation style for these messages, I don't see this as a requirement of the patch in question. It could, of course, be re-rolled as a two-patch series in which the second patch addresses the exclamation points, but fixing the punctuation could also be done later as a follow-up patch by someone (it doesn't need to be you). So, I don't see a good reason to hold up the current patch which stands nicely on its own.