From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from ny.mirrors.kernel.org (ny.mirrors.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F283A1F4B8 for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 21:25:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ny.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8A101C23591 for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 21:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FED80038; Fri, 3 May 2024 21:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qv1-f42.google.com (mail-qv1-f42.google.com [209.85.219.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75F7E4F88C for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 21:24:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714771459; cv=none; b=DkPpHO+sqNQedhVD5CAtTcdFypbGQltiiKT1EM8ub+He+kZndLKba7QWLhMLMY+p6aG5LGi3sP9Dz+7keZvxp2DcAqZmO2ealMHNRLsXmrHTUrhCjzdyq0DwBiJJ1wL6yD7qCDjJgZH4tZmrf+vBT1wIIlIyLOC+cfsB7Q0BfWk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714771459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pBiUTNLX4JK1kGnkP6KNOsk16fvxG/S/yWT5cGBJpKQ=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=gvZOihZvjyg3rPKnICm9AL1BzzrMhFtRI/FNXCDXkdQ8xKGK9JLBQOU4OWB62g1lx16ObjQH9xPaBnnyv5hDIUxZ8E24zlhkPbOyD4vwPJmrlSf3Abg2RvWeRCEKTihB6W7RbAJlURqyMrQarOREcwYPYuHRHt5mcFRofRwl8Ek= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sunshineco.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sunshineco.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-qv1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6a071595d22so761616d6.3 for ; Fri, 03 May 2024 14:24:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714771456; x=1715376256; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=X0eGKe0LgcjAdn/vn7WVTa6sZYZ4ONbihmKf5mWDYEk=; b=n10SCIq6aUb8S5w/ZYvRQ1xBu8Ync0RNkr8FWuzfAT4Gcr3jFwzcpFmkxat7twS29m 6qln0pDoDbuRdBJdsFtlfQsgxugoPAR5YD4Uxmnx9O416f5WjHhkfTVb8iXmwfayb0sJ ZbgxLXKJt52fnJje+vM8VE0qyNJL3wN/v/WLDFBgzDINCS5l5/iGXV4iJyAgTciLxTsn 1rB/InmPYha2+xlrsMgX+jvfsJTYEH2sy0YF4riylOOY5T6smvtbhE34MUWdu7/dSLOY 1bvvpSuRKnIcvm8L5gjWCnuKv8FNTIsYXvxi8tEnUir5GZiNQbMv2WrmyPEXOYWhhrjS LzJA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUhcOQg0eTMXd3VqF9Kyk39aG6uWgIFR32Jyo+YPhI25hOSDYqvne1zf5w6oyzFRwkW9iKtyMs8C8XcluXzvVf5TF8y X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyLuRTme4ERrQnOHDl+ysI/FD6YaE/RH30xxc6pa/Rx1+mgwXz5 PEr3Q3W/fjy5FguROlQCiH4geRhKs23xpKf30GNxTXzDPJBQGHiOR4mTCEmUqifK+LL1eiz+0up mbnW5H7zEDEOzvbdr8/MvxW34OYc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGzkxVanEsz3a5TTVJBUD6OWllOuCblHr4G7dDEeubUXDF6qU4NYSmT7XvK6l2yp3jWBOjHHipXGQ543hgLQEs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:20a8:b0:6a0:d298:e04e with SMTP id 8-20020a05621420a800b006a0d298e04emr4378637qvd.43.1714771456284; Fri, 03 May 2024 14:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240430014724.83813-1-james@jamesliu.io> <20240503071706.78109-1-james@jamesliu.io> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Sunshine Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 17:24:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH v4 0/3] advice: add "all" option to disable all hints To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Dragan Simic , James Liu , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 4:08=E2=80=AFPM Junio C Hamano w= rote: > It seems that Dscho was in agreement that format-patch's use case > should try to be more aggressive at least back then. In the message > in the thread you pointed > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903211209280.41@tvgsbejva= qbjf.bet/ > > he does not give us the exact reason why he does not think the "more > aggressive" mode is not suitable for other use cases, though. Having an answer to that question could be helpful. > A similar thread was raised more recently: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/rq6919s9-qspp-rn6o-n704-r0400q10747r@tzk.qr/ I think I missed this thread. > Also, there was an attempt to clarify what the "factor" really > meant, but we did not get a real conclusion other than the UNIT to > measure the "factor" is called "percent" (without specifying what > 100% is relative to, "percent" does not mean much to guide users > to guess what the right value would be). > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/85snn12q-po05-osqs-n1o0-n6040392q01q@tzk.qr/ I recall this discussion, as well as its followup (in which I proclaimed my continuing lack of understanding of what creation-factor really represents): https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cRp4N=3D6EktoisKAH09aVAPkPgZfHJYcB5pJFJ-C= UpBHFA@mail.gmail.com/ > So, yes, --creation-factor=3D is messy, I think a very high > value, much higher than the hardcoded default of 60, is more > appropriate for use in format-patch, but we do not know what bad > effect it would have if we used much higher default everywhere. At this point in time, I'm not particularly against giving `git format-patch` its own default creation-factor. My only worry (and perhaps it's very minor) is that separate default creation-factors for `git range-diff` and `git format-patch --range-diff` could catch the unwary off-guard when invoking `git range-diff` to manually check the difference between an old an new version of a series before finally invoking `git format-patch --range-diff` to actually create the patches for sending. (I've done this myself on a very few occasions, but perhaps not often enough to warrant the concern(?).)