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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,LIST_MIRROR_RECEIVED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2C51F852 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 13:54:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1352696AbiBGNsq (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2022 08:48:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48946 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1448356AbiBGNL3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2022 08:11:29 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DEDFC03FED3 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 05:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id u3so972809oiv.12 for ; Mon, 07 Feb 2022 05:11:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5yWHWWqrHeiuUHvC9YqLQn7eOVRkVgzl6iSnR0ZgtaA=; b=qY6a1skAWwRkpV570hj3SCW/sqvczcghKkUsN7IYMdNvWTMR4OeVIt+cLDUOxmBBaq PA2iTRrhk/kHhqYjG+rhHNxSJLl9TXFQOGZ9xlxB2Dq1hid+932ihx+dO5dOVAJXX21x QjvOkt9WcMY4JJ+jjmtyCC7mpKeiRUimQwkkGQSdHfQ44otfJFAvC+bTbNd6AmpkAt6Q 6O/g/ac94iF2YnFRna7USk36kGtZG9Mdh9SHaAwT1ZKBkkPVGXyyovq7QvEDOwodeMdo d7XU34Z04KAOMvtCObMcvR5D8crMOox5HEa3oqXaz48JaUQ12U7nYyVLwnB6ES3EtIQ3 ijHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5yWHWWqrHeiuUHvC9YqLQn7eOVRkVgzl6iSnR0ZgtaA=; b=I4PsVWbbh4dqYNrjmZB854jedpGj/OHFZFBeIezluQChSj1vzslFxeKUlDkkNvpvt6 jpnAxDS4gcFedEqRjxzaW1MOwSK8smppxzQgs4TF2mzYlfG9hL9iycekPKYFo0REspAQ eD3HYmx/o24IUKAsXiWNqJuxg/a9qkyvai1VuLzD1cHB3KsyL6JgUpxkbbnJX2KGWsWT 4Om4BEkx3ZthjuiaEncAF8bkpJLcTt/0mMt/f2ixTwyT0PDIJbBK6uzFU+ZAj+xCBoBP /HrpNfR5RA2l3wXx14o42PuBUGlpb3tBdtOQFIxOwvEYVhc262U7nWTqPSK87zWtqjuV nCOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532x3i0Kax0W60k/USCkl1e/mrk5SBjhi9D1Z7ITCo9St3ZoVH7v CAI2mmSGow8iYF1ZvsPV0K+tf2N21DfTXazCc2R4Rt7VJI8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgLXgul3/OpekDD8is70E7PiCIzP+LTZ8/+1GcyjeKZBTmA0oR4grdx1w0XXpwZfKyQnyL9zKVB8YGq7yJEDY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:d47:: with SMTP id w7mr7101932oik.78.1644239462403; Mon, 07 Feb 2022 05:11:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220123060318.471414-1-shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Shaoxuan Yuan Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 21:10:51 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH] lib-read-tree-m-3way: modernize a test script (style) To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:51 AM Shaoxuan Yuan wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:34 PM Eric Sunshine 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 `$p` will be visible at the time of `eval`, however, mixing > > > this sort of change in with all the other changes being made makes it > > > hard for reviewers to spot such little details, let alone reason about > > > correctness. As such, switching of quote types is also probably the > > > sort of change which should be split out into its own patch. The same > > > comment applies to other changes following this one. > > > > I think so. I was thinking fixing all the general styling issues in one > > patch (since they are all style related), but now I realize that the general > > style patch can be divided into sub-patches for clearer review experience. > > > > And my question is, should I do this "multi-patch series" thing in the form of > > "-v" (all under this thread), e.g. "v2" or "v3"? Or I just submit > > multiple patches separately (a new thread for each one)? > > A multi-patch series as v2, v3, etc. would indeed be appropriate, as > you already figured out[1] before I got around to answering belatedly. > > > > Overall, with the exception of the test title which needs to > > > interpolate `$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/