From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4F11F406 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sasl header.b=gg4biB2J; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236318AbjHJQAu (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:00:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58232 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236292AbjHJQAp (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:00:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7285E53 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3703119A256; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:00:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=FpmcC1i2mLqbejCgejUMxqORH/FokShQDy6n4V I3f0w=; b=gg4biB2JOUVHwopfF8txY58YqIHsmEoXt26tN2PPa8JECIy+SmsxBL Lbf3G6SIU7L8LR/vS15046CaKWxuZ+X3/mvkkbjrG7Dz8YQpvF8djQ73LYjAEH2K 3dZU9BNgGga8UnECPNxHSgbIzEXvhmsuDIlPZirBwzUabFJBSqPVg= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E39519A255; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:00:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.168.215.201]) (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 970D919A251; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:00:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] t/lib-rebase: (mostly) cosmetic improvements to set_fake_editor() References: <8ce40f48-f36f-9e81-1a3f-9d8b170c4a0f@gmail.com> <20230809171531.2564785-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:00:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Oswald Buddenhagen's message of "Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:42:46 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0F001450-3797-11EE-8AAA-C65BE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Oswald Buddenhagen writes: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 02:15:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>Oswald Buddenhagen writes: >> >>> An update to the documentation, and two minor functional changes that don't >>> actually change anything given current use cases, and are therefore basically >>> documentation updates as well. >>> >>> Oswald Buddenhagen (1): >>> t/lib-rebase: improve documentation of set_fake_editor() >>> >>> t/lib-rebase.sh | 21 ++++++++++++--------- >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >>Now I lost track. This is slightly different from one of the steps >>in the three-patch series. Were the other two steps retracted? >> > no, this cover letter was a messup on my side, caused by a lack of > attention and still suboptimal tooling. this was meant to be an update > to just this one commit, while keeping the other two intact. I see. It is a bit too late for today's integration cycle to resurrect the other two I have discarded, because I have other things to do including the -rc1 release engineering, but I can easily go back to the list archive. For future reference, in this project, we do not generally replace only a single patch in a three-patch series [*]. We do not want to deal with a mixture of [PATCH v1 1/3], [PATCH v3 2/3], [PATCH v2 3/3], especially since during the evolution of a series, new patches may become needed, a patch may become split into two, etc. Instead everything gets the new iteration number, i.e. v1 and v2 of patches 1/3 and 3/3 may be identical and only 2/3 may have differences between its v1 and v2. And that is perfectly expected around here. Thanks. [Footnote] * Of course there are execeptions. When it is obvious to everybody that the series is more or less done and all things that need to be discussed have been discussed during the review, and the review conclusion is that everything in v4 patch is good except for this minor change necessary in one patch, it would be a good approach to send just a single message, saying "here is to replace step 2 of the 7 patches" under the three-dash line and marking it as [PATCH v5 2/7] (or "v4bis" or any other marking that makes it clear it is the "latest").