[PATCH] Use printf(1) instead of using bash-specific shell code

[Alexis S. L. Carvalho]

> On 2007-03-17 22:23, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr>
> > # Date 1167507225 -7200
> > # Node ID 9b36d9e4f429b741b445fb6a97bbad37fcd6c92a
> > # Parent  641c3bb47e839842f05e28a86473efc6555a49ac
> > Use printf(1) instead of using bash-specific shell code.
> > 
> > Submitted by:  Benoit Boissinot <bboissin at gmail.com>

I've pushed this to crew, thanks.

Thus spake Giorgos Keramidas:
> The changeset below uses the typical FreeBSD way of attributing
> the change, but I just wanted to ask a question with this patch
> as an example:
> 
>   What is the typical attribution style people who use Mercurial
>   prefer?  Should I leave my ~/.hgrc take over and list my name
>   for patches which I receive from others, and list them with a
>   'Submitted by:' line as shown below, or should I use 'export',
>   edit the patch and list the name of the original submitter as
>   'User' in the exported patch header?

I try to keep the name of the person that sent the patch as the author
of the changeset.  I use mq, so if a hg export patch was submitted, I
just qimport it.  If it was just a patch in an e-mail message, I have a
script that keeps the From: header from the e-mail at the top of the
patch.  After that mq takes care of keeping the author name even after
qpop/qpush/qrefresh[1].

Alexis

[1] - qrefresh doesn't keep the date, so if I have to edit something I
end up doing a qpop/qpush pair.