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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581201F910 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:14:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="lmbHZzET"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235448AbiKRSOV (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 13:14:21 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54934 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242588AbiKRSOQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 13:14:16 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5662487564 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:14:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id o13so2907675ilq.6 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:14:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Uy9kQAksuCWfFAg2L9yjFsZIfn7Nt39q+qy1GK10874=; b=lmbHZzETwQMso+W8goUL9LVtuCbfwFkcr8o0SXAT5NzH/wjoMoJSLv3MNuGIQGbSUh XEYjt4l0upOlsU93KGA2UYcnZ9GqKmvD1gJX+WlEkOZ+FSrCUnO67te0IOa7wHkHzhy7 +DQR52ZdFGIzkWkWryK2RZHa+p/tVpH7wiaz7hdQYuG95WyXPFDxq+hk9YDBRr5JlMnt l3uGNec/D8YrjiROCYLIVbEXbpdsV7tqq+eVTcr7Q85Ncc5O2quhFIfQb1N930rnh0QV tDYB53awRjXL9ez4BcbI3EF6FuYIyEwNHX+ZzGvEMrQZuC1y6G2J4gSerzL5+V56tjQB yt2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Uy9kQAksuCWfFAg2L9yjFsZIfn7Nt39q+qy1GK10874=; b=2+x08gH8BkeNfFGQdHor7u1POpVOxhfrDFVQ7rkDSn4keN+KKODILU8PdFFF6YKdfE +h61rRMO72ZzXPgkmO6uaam0Lo2NCLxpPA7LIw9U5xuWCSnT1EbKHxf2ObWFEAG2YyzR FPHKsC0FlAaqtRYSBJDygEYARLyY/MzyQ4722cJTX2Thl6JXbZOAMZZO9deTQKOaTo6I T+h7/+X2doISU9ZpqSignJ2M9ding9CJHIPtkg2cD1XIFQs8pyHPYh5mZHmoMCevNiwf bvOyMt+iCWQoB0fRpVO5ENjiMK/nFC5oJipITNLd80uVgR6QhNNKlskHfWbbXlb5lS+t 2Ccw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkb13442mvez2D4omzEY6L0xAYByi7mo/WCe5paHLzgZULPnDnU QOj9AfGxxcsLmteE2yQOCX+bWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7QqmXo8PN3uVTei/ZuPSYIBLNIwaBq/WIHxsFOQPxJFc52vlKCPnyDOyDaGH3elQ1p4Ko45g== X-Received: by 2002:a92:d783:0:b0:300:cf25:37ec with SMTP id d3-20020a92d783000000b00300cf2537ecmr3632948iln.282.1668795254672; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w8-20020a023948000000b00375aa177cb8sm1454473jae.145.2022.11.18.10.14.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:14:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 13:14:12 -0500 From: Taylor Blau To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?UmVuw6k=?= Scharfe , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tests(mingw): avoid very slow `mingw_test_cmp` Message-ID: References: <128b1f348d8fad730cac1c36d3082fab49904b2c.1668434812.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:32:28PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > But I'm not sure the rewritten version does what you claim, at least in > > my own personal opinion. > > > > It is not helpful to say the original approach "saw a lot of backlash". > > It is the nicest thing I can say about it. I don't think you have to or should refer to the earlier round of review at all. > > It is helpful, on the other hand, to say what about the original > > approach gave reviewers pause, and why that alternative approach isn't > > pursued here. > > > > Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I really do stand by my original > > suggestion from back in [1]. > > We can also keep hitting a dead horse, but I don't think that will make > anything any better. Instead, it would be much more helpful to explain what you tried before, and why you are taking a different approach now. I am simply not comfortable with taking the patch with the way the body is currently written. Thanks, Taylor