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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18141F461 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732027AbfIEVk3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:40:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:40203 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730704AbfIEVk2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:40:28 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id x127so2766389pfb.7 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=B5J8L96YiWXVkPWrVNGbztCdGPe1bRDZ80Yzho6QwKo=; b=i8Dt0z59MPH52Q0yYC6OxLYPjWaral1NtH525JlmvbKnwTxV7mtGP6aqX0SyprsMEA w13mDV95eLxQ7GUeC4+xZxPXTjKoMx9dWrIVI6JFS4qhpLhY5hmzqGqGA/4jZL1qq3B2 X+Oad/9mSHBsmRY0DMdbsJg9572a9MgL0BRaLWDDKCt5/w9wux4dHhD4+EaPE5ZnraWX HBbfozZjsiQ+vRCWy+S99Sce2oAOhaD55EO5IiKdqy6TsGrzdJIkGwe0amRprtcEtKG2 eZB32PMmn9MssZh6AygfhcsPKwmSlQTGLNKpLlz03mF0aERSoSHqZYM58s0xIbh9b+ZF FDZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=B5J8L96YiWXVkPWrVNGbztCdGPe1bRDZ80Yzho6QwKo=; b=R+cQo0MobAPRc6HF47kGuG1Xa5/x3J2CI4gRsWkVKcFkfaLPratbLnbzpLcFCiDqDV 8OnXSGurptRVdFsvyc8xBZtxDWoobJyh+kYCztmkioW/8rR5uft9udrI97b04N4OdrLv m64V9sLULf4rbjSijg5mQ035aXM/hW0xO3dcEPXK9xxV3uJwoPQRjlc3mKnAmkP+rpLI Jqbe/ImohD382KdnyER8yh3KTuhraSiyGJWvUnNAlm/bIU9IgOHe8Sp4lqM+O/wppC5O T0IpTS+q3ByuZ7lFIfPJRBIvZ3G6OAbeMlzKaG2d/n9WiqXZuwBA/TUD1UOhguha5aXL 287A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVXAZTxSRG8QvEZL1pOvZrNF7ih91AT1d8NMSEwdx9nHETlYTjJ oJbVjrVoBysGOv+fKju3SDQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZ3HmlYM1AwXmHoxLUmpBY8LDlQ6Ywga3y9lO8mc9qS5WMZuM3mpAiAbixXm6DTznGmVbVhA== X-Received: by 2002:a62:e10a:: with SMTP id q10mr6539947pfh.236.1567719628134; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dentonliu-ltm.internal.salesforce.com ([204.14.239.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s5sm3306384pfm.97.2019.09.05.14.40.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:40:25 -0700 From: Denton Liu To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Sixt , Philip Oakley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] format-patch: clean up tests and documentation Message-ID: <20190905213933.GA62578@dentonliu-ltm.internal.salesforce.com> References: <20190904112105.GA27933@archbookpro.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 12:56:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu writes: > > > Hi Junio, > > > > I see that "dl/format-patch-doc-test-cleanup" currently has the comment > > "Expecting a reroll." This should be the reroll that you're expecting ;) > > > > Also, since there haven't been any comments on the topic in a while, I > > propose that it should be ready for inclusion. > > I may be the only person who had issues applying that series from > the list, with mixtures of iso-8859-1 and utf-8 causing troubles, > but if I am not alone, I suspect that the reason why nobody gave a > comment is because the patches did not even apply so there is > nothing to base their comments on. Which patches weren't applying properly? I managed to apply both the patchset I had locally and a fresh one I downloaded from public-inbox and both applied cleanly. > > I wiggled them and compared the result. The range diff against what > has been queued seems a bit different from what you gave below > (e.g. I see log message got modified on patch #2 and the dropping of > the comma made it harder to read), but the endpoint diff looks not > too bad (IOW, the alloted time for the topic ran out before I > started looking at each individual patches in more depth). Hmmm, I don't think my workflow uses your topic branches properly. I've been range-diffing against the previously submitted patchsets but it seems like you expect a range-diff against the actual topic branch. What should the ideal workflow be? I've been avoiding working directly from the topic branch since that would require me to manually remove your SOB line whenever I generate new patchsets. I guess I could manually remove your SOB line from each patch manually. I dunno. Any ideas? Thanks, Denton