| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> The difference is that there is now a QA warning for something that |
| 4 |
>> is perfectly within the spec. Maybe the extra verboseness would be |
| 5 |
>> enough, but the eqawarn line should be omitted? It doesn't provide |
| 6 |
>> any info that isn't already present in the output of patch itself. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> It helps people understand why some patches throw a wall of text while |
| 9 |
> others don't. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
WFM, but then omit the "please rebase" at least. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
(Also, with the filename added, the line tends to be very long. |
| 14 |
Maybe omit that leading whitespace to at least partially compensate?) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Ulrich |
Archives