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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, 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 9283D1F5AE for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 03:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229931AbhEKDS2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 23:18:28 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38636 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229465AbhEKDS2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 23:18:28 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27E0C061574 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 20:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id z6so18583487wrm.4 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 20:17:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=u8J3fGO9MsyUxDHnrabGGF9RTjIcTizXo/w/MkEOIFU=; b=pgLqjUu0ukxCiD1uYENIbfJHPg4Cwn4iZ7bd/F06Z4jrVGXwuRSrByGREKSKNr5Jvk VYjk4Bpv+S6ou1uUMSRywAUIkQXnOTMUpB064WzmjZAJa0sE3vV1CBGxtNNmBYm+xpqw fcikTvHGf7GZzslpkLq6Y7pr0IyxyWN9k4J/u/3u3D8hR1IJzsdtLAmry+rr0wxkD1SD 6FGU+XSlc75gMubVDfvhGxHrNgAtAJNPzFvKOCbxbYGpqG/TUeRhudqbZ5rbxHuUQ/0Y wz3iPwNWLEiWatvtVosA0gJhxLXQps1kqaD0mhl8PI56PnVaivld7OX/rNnn5slEhqvL dQQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=u8J3fGO9MsyUxDHnrabGGF9RTjIcTizXo/w/MkEOIFU=; b=DB8S2mQaQdE+foLjSTIXjyLgmGkPW33AUgNN0QBP1ynt4PiBXfTN/G9d0r5jb/wCVE 1UFNn9gnCdPhzTXSJAzauzSBZROrujb7HT4o6Q1f9Tmo0g/KUSGVYt7T85kWFbicqvSo 4Xmv5ahQBCTKFGjHwUtLYZbHYFiTVlr23HtwLYLgRYEZIr3sPdGmdyEnjC3FWiKcpAuc 1jvc+r9Uhr9hCD5sXGlTmg27TjDJFQFadio3AMbd0sAp2BRGSrRvefNNV5/qkEw8v0Oi cntdlJQ6SXFYASbG0hu06RjEkEy40RfoHFbrauUvBO0Sk9JCZM3faHOZ0PZ+16mpNCnY zJ2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vXRVv/MRvnf7j10iwxbrg3LLlyRSvfG07n7/BR0f3zIUXwIPE 6ZU/Jm1I5gDaURagH09M3Iw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7s5A4dsNoHgjD7iItUppbCXxJibXBsRKrm0pcsXYT/O2PsX2dwHMthYwzP9+2zAIhu7d+wA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6087:: with SMTP id w7mr33266253wrt.136.1620703041486; Mon, 10 May 2021 20:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Inspiron (2a01cb04010c4200a87bd4460637fee8.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb04:10c:4200:a87b:d446:637:fee8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s18sm26119699wro.95.2021.05.10.20.17.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 May 2021 20:17:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Firmin Martin To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin , Erik Faye-Lund , Denton Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] format-patch: confirmation whenever patches exist In-Reply-To: References: <878s4ngta2.fsf@Inspiron.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 05:17:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87pmxyez7k.fsf@Inspiron.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Firmin Martin writes: > >>> True. But if we require confirmation before overwriting patches, >>> that would be overall worsening the end-user experience, I am >>> afraid. In a 5-patch series with a cover-letter that was formatted, >>> proofread, corrected with "rebase -i" and then re-formatted, unless >>> you rephrased the titles of the patches, you'd get prompted once for >>> the cover letter (which *IS* valuable) and five-times for patches >>> (which is annoying). >> This is true for this patch, but the semantics changed after the patch >> #3. I really should have squashed them together to not create >> confusion. Sorry about that. > > No, please keep them separate. What we can do to avoid confusion > like I showed is to make a note on the earlier one, saying "with > this the user experience looks like this, which may be suboptimal > for such and such reasons, but in a later step it will be improved > in this and that way". Ok, it's noted.