Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] ref-filter: use strbuf_split_str_omit_term()

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> My initial reaction was negative due to the heavy review burden this
>> series has demanded thus far, however, my mind was changing even as I
>> composed the above response. In retrospect, I think I'd be okay seeing
>> a v6, for the following reasons:
>>
>> - I already ended up reviewing the the suggested new changes pretty
>> closely as a side-effect of reading your proposal.
>>
>> - It would indeed be nice to avoid introducing
>> strbuf_split_str_omit_term() in the first place; thus one less thing
>> to worry about if someone ever takes on the task of retiring the
>> strbuf_split interface.
>>
>> - It should be only a minimal amount of work for Karthik, thus
>> turnaround time should be short.
>>
>> So, I think I'm fine with it, if Karthik is game.
>
> I started to write up a commit message for my proposed change. But it
> did make me think of a counter-argument. Right now we parse
> "%(align:10,middle)" but do not allow "%(align: 10, middle)".
>
> Should we? Or perhaps: might we? If the answer is yes, we are likely
> better off with strbuf_split, because then we are only a strbuf_trim()
> away from making that work.