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=-3.1 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 76C8F1F9FC for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231317AbhCQLrI (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 07:47:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48184 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229766AbhCQLqm (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 07:46:42 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE8FC06174A for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id c16so662409ply.0 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:46:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SnNgB8z6SVjxvqOizLESCNp6BjAvtTYrFadYdsB9KYY=; b=ozKZ7QZxQbZ4NmpEiYyryuy/nCt3lRe+xOLDOhXEaEm3ASFFVQSfD8eQ8J1begCWGg rvUT9Mb86681H9oMNqcyXRquKWkV+Z6XSRI6VbJ2JJNZEJQmlSWJwUpyYaaFOam/PK4p QCwqUpWOFqgdKOl5i18ZEJUjS1sAE+HBODzaKrVhfAqGduxBVYjfLarSZe9SAqprB0BX H2du7uJa6CaAhgO8hHfTXeU80k1QxL0oLbkUPwJhhdkhmBGSiAXJ2SCJGcol6xmGkabA ERYWcvmBeanNA58Tcsoxs1O4SvYQcMx9T8F9dsj5FxsMDF0fiAiFwN5QTcvXlIrHwVyg a9sg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SnNgB8z6SVjxvqOizLESCNp6BjAvtTYrFadYdsB9KYY=; b=BqUMGwBlKDDtrWz8PKW+QNUMtaR046mQFmS3Gds2oes0fneMJhOg671fKqFd9I1bvU jq2as57PpxnJ5OzQsN6CuP+rYqKlI0JmlFycSHxukEW6iJlJECx2m+sHnPkVUauisrkf WF5PyF3WEtUL3tzGdfsVlzLcpVKzdCz3dAkDv5E9W84SnpRIjavfOgCGg31CGdr5D9Za +zWquY5e4IL0avJtx5TAaMfJkHzWILbmgrXbmo7B6X7T1b+837kDZ4ofcUzDsj+tjio3 lh/8t8qe1YCxjaAMGQnoVYfBbKEr7Q+ONrZhxbaE55R3HYMgrceD1pQv1SCWxGSE0jl3 nbEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kX/5XMtpOOkM90Z+JSOtExk5qicAOnZgAMtQ6yxT6MA38kRWM 2sy/qq8FYsupjify8H3QGHs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxe7m1ZYIpjgwqOop+0He8LGscB5YxpboJJlBunZn4vjQ1szGlwVLuA+DT4lpjbdE+5BIQ8RQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:fe96:b029:e4:2f39:9083 with SMTP id x22-20020a170902fe96b02900e42f399083mr4025706plm.47.1615981601376; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([113.185.87.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f135sm19407502pfa.102.2021.03.17.04.46.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:46:38 +0700 From: =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh To: Junio C Hamano Cc: ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Denton Liu , ZheNing Hu Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 2021-02-25 10:13:24-0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" writes: > > > From: ZheNing Hu > > > > Usually we can only use `format-patch -v` to generate integral > > version numbers patches, but if we can provide `format-patch` with > > non-integer versions numbers of patches, this may help us to send patches > > such as "v1.1" versions sometimes. > > I am not in principle opposed to support a fractional version number > that comes after an integral one, which allows users to signal that > it is a minor correction that does not deserve a full version bump. I'm late into the party, but this rational sounds greate to me. > If we were to do this, I would probably suggest a preliminary patch > that refactors the hardcoded "reroll_count - 1" out of diff_title() > so that the helper takes two "reroll count strings", i.e. reroll > count for this round, and the previous round, as two separate > parameters. Teach the caller to pass "reroll_count - 1" for the new > parameter in this preliminary step. However, if it's only a minor correction to the major version, I _think_ it makes better sense to compare with the major version instead of comparing with another minor version. When a reviewer reviews v3.5, they can just compare to v3. In a hypothetical world, when another reviewer jump in and a major change required, v4 reroll also compare with v3. In other words, we will have something likes: - v3 vs v2 - v3.1 vs v3 - v3.2 vs v3 .... - v4 vs v3 The good side of this approach is: the logic to choose previous version is simple. The downside of this approach is: reviewers need to re-read the changes in v3.1 v3.2, etc... However, we can reasonably expect those changes are small enough, they're minor changes after all. And they will need to re-read all the change if the major verison was increased. -- Danh