From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A0D1F403 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="dN7Me373"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229459AbiJMURu (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:17:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45666 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229724AbiJMURt (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:17:49 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171154C626 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBC6158C33; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:17:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=FmjpUKzfIx8x iv9SyaPJ7QnHIJ2BIuE+otu/z7DiC7w=; b=dN7Me373/a/dZp89a4V3BfwhrGj6 pWMkgmNFPNSQFbky81VNJXF0kz7aK0Abiu6P3oAxQ0yeJ1V4zSQVW1SXo5eZ6zNy V53GYegSarHEX6f36mDqmej43Ln5LqQysSLBpHs1MB+842SbD05ax3wy1QuDJ40P K1yfncaadtS8L78= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35297158C32; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:17:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94B79158C30; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:17:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Calvin Wan Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer , Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] run-command API: pass functions & opts via struct References: Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:17:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Calvin Wan's message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:19:27 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1A144FAA-4B34-11ED-9D97-307A8E0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Calvin Wan writes: > Hi =C3=86var > > Thank you for condensing the patch series into something more palatable > for reviewers. The general consensus from the review club yesterday (we > looked at v2) was that it was difficult to follow what patches were > relevant to your original intention and what patches were auxiliary QOL > changes. Also having too many intermediary patches where you add > variables/functions that were later deleted made it hard to visualize > which parts of the patch would end up making it into the final state. I > appreciate the "show your work" approach you take, but I think that > approach is better suited for more difficult patch series where there > are significant/difficult to understand functionality changes. In this > case, the end state of a refactor is clear and there are no > functionality changes so I believe a more condensed series would be > easier to review. That being said, I don't believe there is a need to > spend more time trying to condense this series so future reviewers have > an easier time -- the end result and intentions are enough. > > Reviewed-by: Calvin Wan Thanks, both.