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=-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 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 802151F87F for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:06:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731099AbeKMWEi (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:04:38 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:65046 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726934AbeKMWEh (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:04:37 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A933A864; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:06:45 -0500 (EST) (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; s=sasl; bh=0zxTJINf7EHnHDZraYRtNa1bgS8=; b=By/gzK 1HWd9k+hoWnyc48DqTwtOjtiXhAyCsbkVAAlxCnd8LyMQj7u81h5HHuV2i/nFgLb HWf8/TqosDJXXs4c5sgaXTaMBJufZf62qMTAEdTxYDAMO25xn/qIbeyWNiR2AK4s ZHyLmHq191fBYugQDClV5zMlXXlO8w/931juw= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=R/UwbtCf80FrnYappIuA1vbYv7ngY4tD 5wQ+o5LcdhQ2a1G5VDOOEPGE9WOSU4EpWUM7z8rhs+C0vcQfQxFrNyo9nGB8QhZe RpqI4vSPxRw+6Cn/yRW5j9DNTpl5O0yDT7kcDSapxGybUbVGFLmIsBZfFQmVZ3qg afrk4tBlRz0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8063A863; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:06:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.155.68.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDA1D3A862; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:06:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rebase -r: demonstrate bug with conflicting merges References: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 21:06:40 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:12:18 +0100 (STD)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 95A184E0-E73C-11E8-866F-CC883AD79A78-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks.