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-Status: No, score=-3.6 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,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 9A46B1F4B4 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2440881AbgJUHPA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 03:15:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53976 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2440878AbgJUHPA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 03:15:00 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-xc41.google.com (mail-oo1-xc41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED48EC0613CE for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc41.google.com with SMTP id w25so301416oos.10 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:14:59 -0700 (PDT) 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=83IXP6+cWQEsavCgo3Cqw8wP16z8m+/o4ydXWPqYILU=; b=RJjljm98ez7X6LVQXjG0YEhwPmPKoHuZD/qmNoczwJUbBMtBMZ0rQDjcNqpTZHelxX i6hi9P32uCpwYfZK+fGANzLCGNrs75Wo4H4AAYHPC/m5sHgtHahiBXY0oN4KkjXZ8yN/ aiHGtMKU6GflegoCebF2pt9rooBn5aLuF5UucDQR9JjMER6AcndHJkLSskyYo/hdhCmg yeVG3qBdjdAeV6JSisqNpgKuNT+Fnl6PhTV8inK3TFhs63rhH8z/k1wZARl+OEnDtMOI SoVJu3GbMjqS8Jfg1Vu2koPnAPM3Cwhq7cDL69o/9eK+wtN9ODKQ+1gFxJrEcIaEy0Vt W+6A== 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=83IXP6+cWQEsavCgo3Cqw8wP16z8m+/o4ydXWPqYILU=; b=jBDCpsygR1PILFfKdiC67fwzXkciEQoKA6ObGObrSwqZdU2ycv5b6aD0cRr7NgGGAF aa2WcWuKZeb4lSHqUDO+HXuyNnRUx0M7lfL5ER94awIMBishueRTG6+HTF1JoImlB3th r7Gh2u81ZElSZ30duzi69rsJdQ9gkvCqjiox3Lf2OMaFEqyJkPkwQSNvMzkuV1kF10/d IuxuJoPcpg0q+a/PHGfnCDcFz0mI08Tof7s5/CztrkiPru2/n9vA0DdiZV4SErQeX6fy L8cN3NoalBQwwEsPoEMPvfwIsFGsyXGhiNBaMo7gTab/aSx/t4TGSPGFWLlPXSm1mHRN VMjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Eoyek5EvlVYqH/6tofHTuTkXXmGeiDrpcGbi+t1O7ssFbFkxK icXHXUMpgdmRPufMpq4yG4x2f2Rl7b2q1BeZ6ac= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7YcFbGKiMIRoVBKUyls5AtKZFnqDm7CkLg9ePeKCGFnRZYyJbuVm5EByZRJSgbF3Lz7WQJLkIObe6W9e8SA4= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:ba10:: with SMTP id b16mr1414723oop.75.1603264499102; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:14:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201017075455.9660-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20201020121152.21645-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20201020201535.GB75186@nand.local> <20201020203024.GC75186@nand.local> In-Reply-To: <20201020203024.GC75186@nand.local> From: Charvi Mendiratta Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:44:47 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] t7201: put each command on a separate line To: Taylor Blau Cc: Junio C Hamano , git , Christian Couder , phillip.wood123@gmail.com, =?UTF-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZyBEYW5o?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 02:00, Taylor Blau wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:25:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Taylor Blau writes: > > > When I applied this locally, I used this patch as a replacement for the > > > last patch of v3 [1]. That kept everything passing after each patch. > > > > Oh, so this is a replacement for 5/5 and 1-4/5 of v4 are supposed to > > be identical to those from v3? The difference between [v3 5/5] and > > this one is a single typofix on the subject line, it seems, though. > > Yes, at least that's what I interpreted it as (and how I applied it when > testing). I'd like to hear from the author to make sure. > I think I messed up the versions. Its correct that v4 patch was only replacement for 5/5 (5th patch) of v3, since I need to fix the typo error of subject line. Also, other 4 patches (1-4/5) of v3 need to be remain same in v4. > (As an aside to the author, I often fall into the trap of thinking that > it will be easier to send a single replacement patch which will generate > less email, but--as you can see--it is often more complicated for > reviewers and the maintainer to decipher what's going on. It's often > just easier to re-submit the entire series and include in your cover > letter "this is unchanged from v(n-1) except for ..."). > Yes I realized this, actually earlier I was doubtful about whether to include the previous version's correct patches in the new version or not. I might have confirmed this before sending. But now I will strictly follow this . Thanks a lot to Junio and Taylor for pointing this out. And in order to correct this, I will send the new patch series having (v3 1-4/5]+[v4]). Please correct me, if I missed out anything else. > > >> As you've demonstrated through the microproject that you can now > > >> comfortably be involved in the review discussion, I am tempted to > > >> suggest that we declare victory at this point and move on, but I > > >> don't know what the plans are for the other 4 patches (I guess we > > >> won't miss them that much---the micros are meant to be practice > > >> targets). > > > > > > Yup, ditto. > > > > As [v4] single patch won't apply standalone, we cannot quite declare > > the victory yet. Are [v3 1-5/5] (or [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]) good to the > > reviewers of the past rounds? > > For what it's worth, I'm happy with [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]. > > Thanks, > Taylor Thanks and Regards, Charvi