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-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EA01F4B4 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404922AbgJTUaa (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:30:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39728 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729700AbgJTUa3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:30:29 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-xf43.google.com (mail-qv1-xf43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 432FCC0613CE for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf43.google.com with SMTP id b11so1585631qvr.9 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:30:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=36RSWRZCTOMKdEKcsFYXzoz5+KrWan/NBVl4cT6x31E=; b=jmUeIGb9bHhAESWAu+eK0ZPLWdw06M4b3cb6DTQHCL5EzqZNpUzy4u82O5TTpnriNo toBY2+go6E1VkF3qJTaoyHachYhtP5KjIOeOjdlf4pb1OleAai78Z30k0N9imUEh3rF2 P2jG2bfMbossaROoRcqSkr7RP3a870S+GRuws3VCpsIAo1VFpUxxzC0ozbJleKZh3+hN r2RSlHJzWMIp915o2/pnH91FZYxkRETZLnhESK7/6lzaVOAsngp4C5ZQ31z4Ycl6/Lj4 51EaODVZGwR1x2tvqr/Jq1QJ2QT5C9jSJKMs6myz30nvAcsx24cEdtw6xq6aGpYtXNCx fD/A== 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; bh=36RSWRZCTOMKdEKcsFYXzoz5+KrWan/NBVl4cT6x31E=; b=CLiX/KltvSwQ6xuml8ljWEqztH0VK/9fC94qJl9xhgAVz/CmtmVbHm2CDpJndSML6R FTM4V78lu76k5YSY3fVOUNQ2xHZKQi7ZOerHTHkgpUzKyksuuujs56iGPS7eGs6M6DAy VawnjbR/sRHYGsyeOOpEEeIRJqdVjCdqpEhPO4YiEgaaPAVsJPAeGByTIpI50zxSSLC8 Jfs4cuDO1C8nVG9jjZibmYMmZMHVzZVTixtcvsJjG326mieSHH9hubbs6nnFo9B1hXpz 6HIgDy2hBKb/a9iolnUXY38ly1PD8emNSdaV7eqsovaOzOeAfuVcUn0S/KRnURHvtne7 0low== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533i6Qiwxm9OG3yUs6RjskcV/AojFflcGeNQnSOLdffbmDIxXCma 60NtVgLtjXjYbc0+OCzgx5NvQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMwOCmHkdvN5wdJUgDrOTyxM3AK3bQqEBomLDnkVUxG4vpwrGTGKRL4L1/7XWSJTQ17wb3uA== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e054:: with SMTP id y20mr5428755qvk.30.1603225827486; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2605:9480:22e:ff10:943f:d0f4:e8b9:b8f9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f189sm1363966qkd.20.2020.10.20.13.30.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:30:24 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Taylor Blau , Charvi Mendiratta , git@vger.kernel.org, christian.couder@gmail.com, phillip.wood123@gmail.com, congdanhqx@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] t7201: put each command on a separate line Message-ID: <20201020203024.GC75186@nand.local> References: <20201017075455.9660-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20201020121152.21645-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20201020201535.GB75186@nand.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:25:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau writes: > > When I applied this locally, I used this patch as a replacement for the > > last patch of v3 [1]. That kept everything passing after each patch. > > Oh, so this is a replacement for 5/5 and 1-4/5 of v4 are supposed to > be identical to those from v3? The difference between [v3 5/5] and > this one is a single typofix on the subject line, it seems, though. Yes, at least that's what I interpreted it as (and how I applied it when testing). I'd like to hear from the author to make sure. (As an aside to the author, I often fall into the trap of thinking that it will be easier to send a single replacement patch which will generate less email, but--as you can see--it is often more complicated for reviewers and the maintainer to decipher what's going on. It's often just easier to re-submit the entire series and include in your cover letter "this is unchanged from v(n-1) except for ..."). > >> As you've demonstrated through the microproject that you can now > >> comfortably be involved in the review discussion, I am tempted to > >> suggest that we declare victory at this point and move on, but I > >> don't know what the plans are for the other 4 patches (I guess we > >> won't miss them that much---the micros are meant to be practice > >> targets). > > > > Yup, ditto. > > As [v4] single patch won't apply standalone, we cannot quite declare > the victory yet. Are [v3 1-5/5] (or [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]) good to the > reviewers of the past rounds? For what it's worth, I'm happy with [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]. Thanks, Taylor