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=-4.0 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_LOW, 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 1E4181F670 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 06:03:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233797AbhJZGFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 02:05:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53304 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229940AbhJZGFd (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 02:05:33 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B766C061745 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id w16so926356plg.3 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:03:10 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UNFXdFBIPrW+lMmyS5UXde6GeC5LC3b0gN3OHk9cKbA=; b=ioI/gh1yN1vIc/GwXhgMsiWlt0J6ErgszZvFfeqtoyctfpC+ng9vQGxz/ZJRxiad37 6UyA/Hst5eiV6pTgsMN3sX7bSygKEdlb2Jz5qSX1wBBeo3p6/ayEnUEpRsGtukDwdpKi GHTmnHofomjlM9s/QnZKwLWFo7bxKWNELf4u9eXu70u5AVh72D9kT3oRgjQ4uf3O+cXg K7gZj3+XXgWaNYK/3tMhhBd8/aEs4RvEnDRc6/gbrp7chYWDBJkowN6/SBegPwdxGkzI JYvLrLKhA61CR718eUKJ38HfCP4zALrTIcgBz0FN/ji/VYTtdmHimtkX95Piu0z9qeMU gnrw== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UNFXdFBIPrW+lMmyS5UXde6GeC5LC3b0gN3OHk9cKbA=; b=qKJHq+0OceHLG8yY6SruUK886wlBjpeMTvtGGNFXUSmiUWj+eJmwSfNx19BoyQrQZk WPuRTRrAwtteSTkA282mEtd9Do91z40NzuooyNYH8iPbjT5MDrm+Fy9eTSW8kMQgcDwM 1KMAddkoBdu2bUtoOZ1GGWGfStsS7xPSc/i9bd8+rACtHIbP38Y7DEPwQY2lbMfFT0yP H1UQYChgKf/hcNKKrm+QaH+jvT/X7JLp3SMc20sLiS+kEHza7K6G4UcuALJbCsKNAhWk qAw0yvpdWUYazQXnQDgLT4n10rv9uAeNBvQXiJLbXoPMH0RGLSGKT1Meciq4X4Ao5XKU YuWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533q3KlGr0LwI7r7HFKQ5Wv4GbgVqPuPfbiDqwvqYV4u2dXm05sf mln2Kc+Bqkev5n4JjCfVYIrr5TeEdneoOyoMJpU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy5trjYhwdnqjqg8IJk9hEvWxlDB8aBgHeu1aFZpp5WSKHYNQ5vRpc52Xr5wg73Pq8rov7j+8hvEnuhVaZk6BA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:388a:: with SMTP id mu10mr39544588pjb.221.1635228189733; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:03:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <481447f9-7222-d9fc-269f-2de50299fb09@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <481447f9-7222-d9fc-269f-2de50299fb09@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 08:02:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Documentation: change "folder" to "directory" To: Bagas Sanjaya Cc: Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee , Taylor Blau , "Dr . Adam Nielsen" , =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Nar=C4=99bski?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Bagas, On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 11:19, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > On 25/10/21 00.09, Martin =C3=85gren wrote: > > Martin =C3=85gren (3): > > git-multi-pack-index.txt: change "folder" to "directory" > > gitignore.txt: change "folder" to "directory" > > gitweb.txt: change "folder" to "directory" > > > > The same logical change over three patches, why aren't they be squashed > into single commit? Old habit, I guess. :) I tend to find that having multiple patches aids reviewing. Within reason, obviously. Reviewers don't have to go "I agree with everything except that particular hunk", but can just say "I agree with everything except patch two", making tracking things a bit easier. Similarly, if the patches are all independent (albeit being about the same topic) and it comes up that a particular patch is not such a good idea after all because reasons, Junio could just decide to apply a subset and leave the rest. In this case, the commit message of the third patch assumes that the first two have already been applied, so they're not completely independent, but that's about the only interdependency there is in these. I'm happy to go either way. Martin