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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E6B1F87F for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732816AbeKMWpk (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:45:40 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:58231 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732743AbeKMWpk (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:45:40 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.129] ([37.201.193.149]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVui8-1fyLFP1dWa-00X55v; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:47:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:47:34 +0100 (STD) From: Johannes Schindelin X-X-Sender: virtualbox@gitforwindows.org To: Junio C Hamano cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rebase -r: demonstrate bug with conflicting merges In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:LTfRwxL6EHCAa2Ktqtbh4fjtlFklAdGUBNPRX61OqT7C2bORb3q CLBAF69d/IpX/bNUiybtdQugLIWpkwUf/GI+4OpJgBggtzO/5wc0C6y11QpmadLOzb//jAr Yofw22+kAZTsHlZ8KMpGT/OKbtlxUuOUwaeGrx32KhyYjrg3dbI2SEvqpzI/blkNjcal1VA sHzHC6o7EiCrqn0o3Q77A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:F7py+A6bmTc=:N12Xb9VMTizCes09EaKJSM 4LX5VLXbjbbUXli+Qq1iHQf2z6bZljJhrxaYE9zkuxmJSP2yixruradYMD+5gV6T7vpz+SWZ4 Q+/NX+4ULxUP+mbxy7LcPQqaAbX57fXM2hpqFKEuxukhOjs/ye2y0fEJ6Y9BpraoldA57ufFx wscZ68AOVpXzAkXddHke3o2dRotlC8f5aTMteH7oKUkvPzGEm+kB5vDy/07nTX2HzDuTPAGAu 3SAI9RlQQ1P16aKjR7OyiVYm/MW/4zUbISbK7N5DCdhXeBsyx8SmarJ0nbij3Ncnw2ifuqnSq aMMDJKhv1wfoI9Wb6qYm2x6PKX0lC82LgammNHfu9aYOLM8iNvUXXo9qNL4TSEjTZLZTjIhAO ZKbDP1eXPj6m/C8lTS6h4sfYVHkn0zBC/4b853L/CcSE75FxFEIq7kB1WTz1Q8ZRugoRRQvLV 6LE13V3UqfpYP8eIlfkjKWrHc8D3qJ4+fgGbQsutuc9UCottDNFzrlyLzuQ1oSUD6aKMz4SYg IAdHFGt/fl59IIOrhzc/dd5D0CShhe/tX4cxdokgwOUUbfKUgpehKynVn0giuib3J0LRSgXfW UQsuPXQCpftIc6gp2UG4XUfuM5aUInTel0mg/8PV5c9bHxtFqQQym1XRO/Ohv8/4uS0vWI24x 1wTyPUmJPDy7rFvgkLSB1NJUxsOnZn+RQc7RePijsjx3ZJItOYsExaLc5cgFkRntlA0ljdpTM 7VWuI+2xIfTtbM+pdyFa3Rm122AsEgGvLwPHyuD5f9/PbQJ+cyiiAZlPYlD1OzcAWRbuTziPB X9TWU5TqSqDyRoTI3n3RWNKnUMFi9GdknPR0E/WBw1U/Q93L+QovPBx2VemLNNous77l2Luy3 CylZifhjnMOt4At0zuENEeo+pDw2RpkTyZupPKgi/6NhQbHhMY6lkG1QPzRenm8bGCUV82dkH cqHTZhOYG+g== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Junio, On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > >> For a trivially small change/fix like this, it is OK and even > >> preferrable to make 1+2 a single step, as applying t/ part only to > >> try to see the breakage (or "am"ing everything and then "diff | > >> apply -R" the part outside t/ for the same purpose) is easy enough. > > > > I disagree. It helps both development and porting to different branches to > > be able to cherry-pick the regression test individually. Please do not ask > > me to violate this hard-learned principle. > > A trivially small change/fix like this, by definition (of "trivial" > and "small" ness), it is trivial to develop and port to different > branches a single patch, and test with just one half (either the > test part or the code-change part) of the change reversed, to ensure > that the codebase is broken without the code-change and to > demonstrate that the code-change does fix the problem revealed by > the test change. And "porting" by cherry-picking a single patch is > always easier than two patch series. > > So you may disagree all you want in your project, but do not make > reviewer's lives unnecessarily harder in this project. You misunderstand. In this case it is crucial to read the regression test first. The fix does not make much sense before one understands the condition under which the order of the code statements matters. By trying to force me to smoosh them together, you are trying to force me to combine them in one patch where you would read the (now seemingly non-sensical) fix first, and only then the test. That's just really unhelpful. If I were a reviewer, I would want it presented in the way it *was* presented. I firmly believe most reviewers would. Ciao, Dscho