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=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, 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 E1DBD1F910 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:08:00 +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="ssSN9Jag"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229698AbiKUAH6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Nov 2022 19:07:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53068 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229518AbiKUAH5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Nov 2022 19:07:57 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CB12AE35 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id x16so5012029ilm.5 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:07:55 -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=S+S9zFcr0wqxg9obqgX1HbTPAAHQJAPUjBxh3D0gaq8=; b=ssSN9JagM6+UDrfSc2BFHmHH6eXJyY8ErviPlDtcVdKjt3NYwnEg9JVjPtq/XQkhqx zOF5GD7mgwLOWLKvz4ftsZtPs7tDfwRjrQiSBfUYgjkBnuKxQFntHboItW76UaBg/1XH C0AnrsvzUFvmV56AzZcgc7mTXsbBfIHDArT5iK6fkxx0BadOkbNOF3htv8UXAojRL1zQ oNOG6q/Sdv6TMqRuiF1NBkzyi3bh9YZz92yDwTJW5B7dO0kHt2UHGpdjplbyRZ/pDiQn Nw+/AHq2zcwbfQTv3zFYRpwu3u5onnHqpINajawGWJ2V7OJDCLCSLrczIQpSSgAKJsdQ oMAQ== 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=S+S9zFcr0wqxg9obqgX1HbTPAAHQJAPUjBxh3D0gaq8=; b=ZadHCs0L6h4dX2i5P5MDdPqSTUb67cANGSy6e4KK/TFNVFRcn71BdI/KIV4Tv/qhmN HpAxM/o8jnAeFmrsGUx0NqNEEXUGfYApENsCdaCbMqg4Th7AyLNyx4XKFBd9uAOrxKbZ abrNJireNeoGKVFkzCicgGej0iNNq9yEyczXq25ZULQgCx5MgW7GsjWvjzILrPKPW9CM rsk86xm2QmX16sAOrxWry07X1JphpVffEwEwTdTy1thBnsL/7d6N5tc1V5uDGSZHKrnX +lutmxcFBTLlSOefT3XUBfN/N2qgsbIYyZ8Nb3LHzihjTVRoLxw84YInRGSk74gpvsVR nJUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plx2MLOuQeDiTBtcwVSz3O+TZz+gRxmih6i6bkr9zy0G4EtYlHa qP7VLT6lzZ5wKe33e6LcT5zk9Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5XX2RK83ZE9I7T6GzBe1gkIYo65GUqnnJe2u0OmohRqPgJGOjyA9rO1Nq6TQefQU9BDBJpyw== X-Received: by 2002:a92:9504:0:b0:300:7a6d:c37c with SMTP id y4-20020a929504000000b003007a6dc37cmr6929210ilh.32.1668989275153; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a19-20020a6b6613000000b006bcd45fe42bsm3690283ioc.29.2022.11.20.16.07.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:07:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 19:07:53 -0500 From: Taylor Blau To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Taylor Blau , 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 Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:36:25AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > I am referring to the fact that Git for Windows has run with a very > different solution for this problem, for years, yet it was rejected upon > upstreaming, and had to be replaced by a completely different workaround. > > It's not just a simple "earlier round of review" at all that is the issue > I am describing. Right. Having read the earlier thread myself, I am familiar with the context. So I'm not trying to dismiss it as just another round of review, but instead try to steer the commit message in a more constructive direction. > It is a very real concern of future readers who know what patches are > currently in Git for Windows and who all of a sudden do not find the `git > test-tool cmp` code anymore in Git for Windows and then see that `git diff > --no-index` is used and naturally want to know what the heck happened. > > This is context relevant to understand why the particular approach > implemented in the patch was chosen and another one was discarded (when > that other approach has served Git for Windows very well for several > years), for which the commit message is precisely the appropriate place. I > am quite lost trying to understand why I am asked to remove said context, > leaving future readers puzzled e.g. in the case that it should turn out to > have been a terrible idea to use the quite complex diff machinery for as > simple a task as `test_cmp`. It sounds to me like I am asked to make my > contribution worse ("worsimprove" is the term I recently learned to > describe this) instead of helping me to improve it. No. I am not suggesting you remove context at all. But what I am saying is that describing the last attempt at upstreaming by saying it "saw a lot of backlash and distractions during review and was therefore abandoned" is not helpful. If it saw backlash and distraction: why? What about the approach caused backlash? Describing that thing as an alternative approach and explaining concretely why it was disliked is the sort of context that I think we should aim for in our commit messages. But characterizing the review outright as full of backlash and distractions is not helpful to future readers, and it is not a kind way to treat others on the list who may have participated in that review. > The advice you provided directly contradicts what is written in > https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#describe-changes, after all > (ignore the funny grammar for now unless you want to add a tangent to this > already long thread): > > The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: > > [...] > > 3. alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any. I am saying that, as written, the commit message does not explain what the alternative approaches were in great detail. Thanks, Taylor