Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fsmonitor.allowRemote now overrides default behavior

[Eric D <eric.decosta@gmail.com>]

Well, needless to say I wasn't expecting GitGitGadget to do what it
did.I had squashed things down to just two commits and forced-pushed
the second commit thinking that just the relevant stuff from the
second commit would show up in the next patch. Obviously that didn't
happen. Sorry about that.

I can certainly squash it down to just one commit and force-push that.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "Eric DeCosta via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: Eric DeCosta <edecosta@mathworks.com>
> >
> > Reworked the logic around fsmonitor.allowRemote such that if
> > allowRemote is set it will determine if monitoring the remote
> > worktree is allowed.
> >
> > Get remote protocoal information; if this fails report an error else
> > print it if tracing is enabled.
> >
> > Fixed fomratting issues.
>
> The end result (i.e. HEAD^{tree} of the branch you developed these
> two patches on) may be good (I haven't checked), but it is not how
> we fix problems in an earlier attempt in this project by keeping the
> faulty commit(s) on the bottom and piling "oops, that was wrong, and
> here is a fix-up" commit(s) on top.
>
> Once you are happy with the end result, use "rebase -i" to clean-up
> the history leading to that end result.  The goal is to pretend as
> if you were a perfect human, more perfect than your actual self, who
> came up with an ideal patch without making mistakes that need to be
> corrected with "fix-up" commits.  In this particular case, you'd
> most likely want to end up with a single commit, so squashing them
> together and fixing up the log message might be all you need to do.
> When you work on a more elaborate topic, you may also want to split
> or reorder original commits to present a logical progression towards
> the end result.  "rebase -i" is a good tool to help you do so.
>
> I am not a user of GitGitGadget myself, but if I recall correctly,
> you should be able to force-push the result of such a clean-up to
> update the pull-request, to trigger a new iteration to be sent to
> the list.
>
> Thanks.