Hi Junio, On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > >> Just in case it was unclear, none of the comment above means I want > >> any part of the patch redone--I am happy with this patch as-is. > > > > Thanks for saying that... I was about to try to make things clearer, but I > > could not think of a better term than "needs_cr". > > I don't, either ;-). > > The primary reason I respond with the "I find this a bit confusing > but it probably is just me" (not just to this patch) is to give an > example of a review comment that demonstrates to the others that the > reviewer understood what is in the patch and the issues around the > change better than a mere unsubstantiated "These look OK to me.", > which does not tell us how carefully the proposed change was > reviewed by the reviewer--such a review does not allow me to "trust > the review that is already done by others" and apply the patches > with minimum cursory scanning and I end up having to carefully read > them myself. Your response is also an indicator to me that future myself will find the same code just as confusing as you did, though. Maybe need_cr -> eol_is_crlf? Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
