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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 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_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C9D1F45E for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:37:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728569AbgBKMho (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:37:44 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-f65.google.com ([209.85.217.65]:41452 "EHLO mail-vs1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728041AbgBKMho (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:37:44 -0500 Received: by mail-vs1-f65.google.com with SMTP id k188so6156523vsc.8 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 04:37:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c/kzVsry4ITNjBpvjZ3OJLf+LoSSw7GzhNpB6YTBU4Y=; b=oqxYjmmUWDZ3ErkQDP2t03yuQbegtR6kSxv0eu9kFjdMLqT4NqvwJVb/Ht91MEsgvU ZSKIWtenTDq81Ir1kNsd4cwasES0Ep9rFQ0En6FCrCvAM1oUWLIV/02nbDKFNUODgVYG GORsclGGl+xM+Zkb0xdhtyYWfcwUsXFa5wytRJAqrZTwZK/TXR4EI+IFDgOlCAHHUo0u vxLOVD1pGv6V/wCQb7CjrXW6LEp/Iosri5PvfIAUjOeeeTi3t7Endc4s3yIg2hFXhJY0 f3i4ZZ0gghqPNNZ1uPatItmBpDJRFxVSzKQmmlD2/cLHU1XXwyUOc4yg7ZAySQ6OBdQU Twcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c/kzVsry4ITNjBpvjZ3OJLf+LoSSw7GzhNpB6YTBU4Y=; b=ipAbkAglbJY4AbBKbQFIegOT3WEutx51luwaDHaYoQsxAikf3xZURZ5KNGmYBuUlw6 6E45Zunsmf420vlYFzhK/TGw87jDgB6cbL/o864C6oFZP+i+3TAoNgNz+kcYrnkeyibj /b49Pzz9D3srOKeccRS9Zh6kZzqHDRlsExcn5Ir4HpomHL5BhuhOxX+P532oMDUO86lW z3ElODg5QzMZVt9z9s9ejiBKY+xkdmcfLqmVysiY3sVptcck++VBciWLb95+3UJ5eNjh O+AVHhAiFqiUuO4MKZgSrsDWGwCVMq6v0+6INQfCgA0PfkXZC18YXbMfpBAkw+i+yoiQ lxdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhIaW0XptIxysaA6OF60zKcMHgKXZGk5UNdh6GlsuDyYpSIyY3 aDyYnN8rtNLG4/CN9Eo2A9+0weUHUurxtq7OHrI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/PSp7KEw2RWyGamdpJrqKnWHR3eGShEILty0obao2EB9UVO3hW85nrP8ha7uWkpNx9kfZ306DjxcYXBSrWQs= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f847:: with SMTP id b7mr9007478vsp.40.1581424663522; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 04:37:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14b0f278196ab9ab130402c2ef79adb0543655ef.1581294660.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Matt Rogers Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:37:32 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/10] config: make scope_name non-static and rename it To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Matthew Rogers via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:10 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Matt Rogers writes: > > >> How are you reviewing the patches in your own series before sending > >> them out? This round is better than the previous rounds where we > >> didn't have a matching change to the tests so "make test" may not > >> have passed in the middle of the series, though... > >> > > > > I went through each patch individually using rebase -i and built/tested it. > > Although just to save time I only did t1300 and t1308 since I believe those were > > the only ones that should be affected. I can write a script that > > would run the whole > > test suite overnight for me and make sure the series shakes out okay, > > if you'd like. > > What I like does not matter. > > What I pointed out for 04/10 wouldn't have been caught by your > testing anyway, as both the code and the test had matching > unnecessry changes. I was wondering if you are relying too heavily > on just tests and without actually proofreading the changes to see > if they still make sense in the context of the updated series, and > if my suspicion was correct, if there are something reviewers can do > to help the authors. > > I do try to proofread patches, I'm just not the most careful of reviewers at times, partially as a personal problem and partially as this is a new workflow for me. As for the particular issue, I just thought it was a good idea at the time and I didn't think it all the way through -- Matthew Rogers