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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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 959321F9FC for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233003AbhCQTRz (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:17:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:55262 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231351AbhCQTRa (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:17:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7ACA8FC7; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:17:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=E5tVriGAagch ihv3eMQAj0s8I/M=; b=f8+Q6NYiWSH9m577ME+1DLioxOZJrq97kxvKeFvGsR2v yiScvEPy10P1O+EnPlCg4wKRrbSlc6aKWs9xhkRSu388cFRSFm4njBw500nRk/W0 4B5A7FDC180J0DPyS7GjVbyhvcg+vpNPezpgFiM6jwjORNQuFqhv3Y9yfegipxQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=l0CHge EgBtN2n/mF/LGBh+WBbLiPCQGhuJ2QgDH0hbqS5edizhzwIM8bZ9xiCIExckGSNg dbZWUyiSg1b9Ey1vXfNLG//8vHh+gX+onsl7wktYEksedRtfTpb4od+71B5Gvu6x aLiWxMStQfhysMOi5iwo9cmXHMYB5ef2ZgTaM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3080CA8FC5; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:17:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99C4AA8FC4; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:17:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh Cc: ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Denton Liu , ZheNing Hu Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers References: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:17:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?B?IsSQb8OgbiBUcuG6p24g?= =?utf-8?B?Q8O0bmc=?= Danh"'s message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:46:38 +0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6AAB25D2-8755-11EB-AA07-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C4=90o=C3=A0n Tr=E1=BA=A7n C=C3=B4ng Danh writes= : >> 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. I wanted to have no opinion on this, as what is expected out of the fractional iteration count by people would be different depending on whom you ask. The "-1" suggestion was a fallback to allow those who supply integral reroll count not to explicitly say what the previous round was from the command line. I do not particularly care how the previous round for fractional iteration count were computed by default when the user did not give one explicitly from the command line. > 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.