Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2018, #02; Mon, 6)

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Aug 7, 2018, 06:30 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRGVaJqP7XFzb9RQDqr543auoawMUmkynXar-paTeL9BQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRoxiPUhXFA2vdZWh0iLfitFeN5CbUDduJuRZ0JGw=fvA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:47 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:36 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > * pw/rebase-i-author-script-fix (2018-08-02) 2 commits
> >  - sequencer: fix quoting in write_author_script
> >  - sequencer: handle errors in read_author_ident()
> >  (this branch uses es/rebase-i-author-script-fix.)
> >
> >  Undecided.
> >  Is it the list consensus to favor this "with extra code, read the
> >  script written by bad writer" approach?
>
> Phillip's original "effectively one-liner" backward compatibility[1]
> seemed a reasonable compromise[2] between the choices of no backward
> compatibility and heavyweight backward compatibility of his
> re-roll[3]. His reference[4] to an earlier "one-liner" backward
> compatibility solution given similar circumstances bolstered the case
> for his original approach.

To summarize, I think Phillip is planning to re-roll, going with the simpler backward-compatibility (though he was waiting an "okay" from you[2]).

[2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/455fafb5-3c92-4348-0c2c-0a4ab62cf2ce@talktalk.net/