| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
With the preceding commit, `OPT_INTEGER()` has learned to support unit
factors. Consequently, the major differencen between `OPT_INTEGER()` and
`OPT_MAGNITUDE()` isn't the support of unit factors anymore, as both of
them do support them now. Instead, the difference is that one handles
signed and the other handles unsigned integers.
Adapt the name of `OPT_MAGNITUDE()` accordingly by renaming it to
`OPT_UNSIGNED()`.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
There are two main differences between `OPT_INTEGER()` and
`OPT_MAGNITUDE()`:
- The former parses signed integers whereas the latter parses unsigned
integers.
- The latter parses unit factors like 'k', 'm' or 'g'.
While the first difference makes obvious sense, there isn't really a
good reason why signed integers shouldn't support unit factors, too.
This inconsistency will also become a bit of a problem with subsequent
commits, where we will fix a couple of callsites that pass an unsigned
integer to `OPT_INTEGER()`. There are three options:
- We could adapt those users to instead pass a signed integer, but
this would needlessly extend the range of accepted integer values.
- We could convert them to use `OPT_MAGNITUDE()`, as it only accepts
unsigned integers. But now we have the inconsistency that we also
start to accept unit factors.
- We could introduce `OPT_UNSIGNED()` as equivalent to `OPT_INTEGER()`
so that it knows to only accept unsigned integers without unit
suffix.
Introducing a whole new option type feels a bit excessive. There also
isn't really a good reason why `OPT_INTEGER()` cannot be extended to
also accept unit factors: all valid values passed to such options cannot
have a unit factors right now, so there wouldn't be any ambiguity.
Refactor `OPT_INTEGER()` to use `git_parse_int()`, which knows to
interpret unit factors. This removes the inconsistency between the
signed and unsigned options so that we can easily fix up callsites that
pass the wrong integer type right now.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
We presently use the ".txt" extension for our AsciiDoc files. While not
wrong, most editors do not associate this extension with AsciiDoc,
meaning that contributors don't get automatic editor functionality that
could be useful, such as syntax highlighting and prose linting.
It is much more common to use the ".adoc" extension for AsciiDoc files,
since this helps editors automatically detect files and also allows
various forges to provide rich (HTML-like) rendering. Let's do that
here, renaming all of the files and updating the includes where
relevant. Adjust the various build scripts and makefiles to use the new
extension as well.
Note that this should not result in any user-visible changes to the
documentation.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
