From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383D21F89C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:53:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752311AbdARSxI (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:53:08 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:52823 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092AbdARSxG (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:53:06 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BCC5FF49; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:52:44 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=esomUejuSXWmgujMzsSNjOys5OY=; b=ay/suw H5FZZL4MXRRoN6IQFXmSLfV0Y5CkBz7uC/MY4KRBIZNu/jjjAEFGuOc3O+qFMeX8 wJz6Pq8/uajPFF63tZ7fvDWLHG2vZn+v8cG0vpdPHSIJ3rrOU+3tm64Ku5//E3v3 gTZ9v7uMCtMylHmEK+a8wUL+OeJEAzthnLQo4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=b88e2lqeUhkje+MkuH1FJWk9z9YK/gRy RKA6Cexk8P4h/qiJa7WZ7hJV7vzY2DIctcgeoh0SisoL7jXUh/rNgsqPqe/tZw3c dxX8d29NJ+kVLNuryax1laIOWA4ngZcxbdleQ3DNJDJaqhsK11GRBpKUvfkpvHt7 tBdtQ5/xzM4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A545FF48; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:52:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A40D95FF44; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Santiago Torres Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, sunshine@sunshineco.com, walters@verbum.org, Lukas Puehringer Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] builtin/tag: add --format argument for tag -v References: <20170117233723.23897-1-santiago@nyu.edu> <20170117233723.23897-5-santiago@nyu.edu> <20170118182831.pkhqu2np3bh2puei@LykOS.localdomain> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:52:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170118182831.pkhqu2np3bh2puei@LykOS.localdomain> (Santiago Torres's message of "Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:28:32 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4B873B22-DDAF-11E6-B9B5-FE3F13518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Santiago Torres writes: >> Squashing the following into this commit solves this issue with the >> former approach. The lines it touches are all from 4/6 and I view >> all of it as general improvement, including type correctness and >> code formatting. > > Thanks! > > Should I re-roll this really quick? Or would you rather apply this on > your tree directly? Nah, local squashing should be sufficient in this case. The squash only touches a single patch from the original and it itself is easy to review (and was reviewed already from what I can tell in this thread).