Sebastian Götte <> writes:

> On 04/24/2013 09:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> None of the above is part of a proper commit log message, is it?
> Fixed (I hope)

Don't hope, instead do.  ;-)

The questions I asked were not requests to explain them to _me_ in a
response like this.  They were the examples of what the proposed
commit log message should have explained what the patch attempts to

>>> -IFS=' '
>> Why?
> Otherwise in the for-loop below the output of the pipe chain is not correctly
> split by newlines. Also AFAIK, this is not needed: I think the default
> '<space><tab><newline>' is just fine here.

It is not enough to make sure that IFS has SP so that existing code
works correctly; we also need to see if the existing code needs to
avoid cutting the tokens at HT or LF.  I think in this case using
the default IFS is safe, as input to pre-push are SP separated refs
and object names, none of which can have SP, HT or LF in it.

>># Check for missing good GPG signatures
>>git log --format="%G? %h" "$range" |
>>                exitcode=0
>>                while read sign commit
>>                do
>>                                test "$sign" = G && continue
>>                                echo "Commit $commit does not have a good GPG 
>> signature"
>>                                exitcode=1
>>                done
>>                exit $exitcode
>>let exitcode=exitcode\|$?

Don't use bash-ism "let".

The above loop is a perfectly fine and readable way to write the
logic, by the way

Except that we tend to prefer $ret over $exitcode, but I've already
said that.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to