Re: [GSoC][PATCH] lib-read-tree-m-3way: modernize a test script (style)

[Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com>]

Got it, I'm learning along the way, and thanks for the reply!

--
Thanks,
Shaoxuan

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 7:59 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:51 AM Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:34 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > > In this case, the indentation of the entire body of the for-loop needs
> > > to be fixed to use tabs rather than spaces, however, fixing all the
> > > indentation problems together with the other problems can make for a
> > > too-noisy patch for reviewers to really see what is going on. As such,
> > > it may be better to make this a multi-patch series in which one patch
> > > fixes indentation problems only.
> >
> > > As mentioned above, changing the body of the test from double- to
> > > single-quoted string should (presumably) be okay since the body gets
> > > eval'd and `$p` will be visible at the time of `eval`, however, mixing
> > > this sort of change in with all the other changes being made makes it
> > > hard for reviewers to spot such little details, let alone reason about
> > > correctness. As such, switching of quote types is also probably the
> > > sort of change which should be split out into its own patch. The same
> > > comment applies to other changes following this one.
> >
> > I think so. I was thinking fixing all the general styling issues in one
> > patch (since they are all style related), but now I realize that the general
> > style patch can be divided into sub-patches for clearer review experience.
> >
> > And my question is, should I do this "multi-patch series" thing in the form of
> > "-v<n>" (all under this thread), e.g. "v2" or "v3"? Or I just submit
> > multiple patches separately (a new thread for each one)?
>
> A multi-patch series as v2, v3, etc. would indeed be appropriate, as
> you already figured out[1] before I got around to answering belatedly.
>
> > > Overall, with the exception of the test title which needs to
> > > interpolate `$p`, the rest of the changes are probably reasonable and
> > > benign. It's important to understand that lengthy patches like this
> > > full of mechanical changes tend to be quite taxing on reviewers, so
> > > it's a good idea to help in any way you can to ease the review burden.
> > > This can be done, for instance, by making only a single type of change
> > > per patch (i.e. indentation fixes), or by limiting the scope or
> > > breadth of the changes, which is especially important for this sort of
> >
> > I'm not quite sure what this means, and I quote, "limiting the scope or
> > breadth of the changes". Are you suggesting, for example,
> > fixing fewer occurrences of tab indentation issue in a patch; or, for
> > example, limiting the
> > fix to a specific "test_expect_success" block, and do multiple patches
> > sequentially?
>
> Sorry for being unclear. I just meant that as a microproject, it would
> have worked equally well to pick a much smaller test script with style
> problems (if you could find one) rather than a long script. After all,
> the purpose of a microproject is to give you experience with the
> submission-review process and to give reviewers and mentors an idea of
> how you interact. It's the process which is important, in this case,
> not the size of the submission.
>
> Anyhow, it looks like Junio is happy with your v3 and will be merging
> it down to "next", so it all worked out.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220202064300.3601-1-shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com/
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqr18jnr2t.fsf@gitster.g/