list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Eric Sunshine <>
Cc: Josh Soref <>,
	Josh Soref via GitGitGadget <>,
	Git List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git-merge: rewrite already up to date message
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 11:39:47 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqv981c0zw.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Sat, 1 May 2021 22:15:18 -0400")

Eric Sunshine <> writes:

> Indeed. While it might be nice to settle upon a single punctuation
> style for these messages, I don't see this as a requirement of the
> patch in question. It could, of course, be re-rolled as a two-patch
> series in which the second patch addresses the exclamation points, but
> fixing the punctuation could also be done later as a follow-up patch
> by someone (it doesn't need to be you). So, I don't see a good reason
> to hold up the current patch which stands nicely on its own.

I would agree in general, especially for a patch that fixes some
behaviour that hurts people *and* does a clean-up while at it, that
it is OK that the secondary "clean-up" part does not do as through
job as it should.

But isn't the premise of this particular patch "these 'already
up-to-date' messages puzzle readers by being sligntly different,
when the differences are not meant to convey anything, so let's
unify them and make them more coherent to help readers and
translators", is it?  I think that was why "Yeeah!" was removed, for
example.  Now we were made aware of the presence of "Already up to
date" vs "Already up to date!" by the "grep" tool.  Leaving half the
grep hits unaddressed makes the patch look like stopping halfway the
task it started to do.

So, in this particular case, I do not agree with any of the
"two-patch" or "follow-up" or "somebody else can do so".


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-02  2:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-18 18:33 [PATCH] git-merge: move space to between strings Josh Soref via GitGitGadget
2021-04-18 19:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-21 23:22 ` [PATCH v2] git-merge: move primary point before parenthetical Josh Soref via GitGitGadget
2021-04-21 23:46   ` Eric Sunshine
2021-04-22  0:55   ` [PATCH v3] git-merge: rewrite already up to date message Josh Soref via GitGitGadget
2021-04-22  3:41     ` Eric Sunshine
2021-04-28  4:04     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-29  7:52       ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-02  1:51         ` Josh Soref
2021-05-02  2:15           ` Eric Sunshine
2021-05-02  2:39             ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2021-05-02  6:26             ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-02  7:14               ` Eric Sunshine
2021-05-02  5:14     ` [PATCH v4 0/2] normalize & fix merge "up to date" messages Eric Sunshine
2021-05-02  5:14       ` [PATCH v4 1/2] merge(s): apply consistent punctuation to " Eric Sunshine
2021-05-02  5:14       ` [PATCH v4 2/2] merge: fix swapped "up to date" message components Eric Sunshine
2021-05-03  5:21         ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-03  5:50           ` Eric Sunshine
2021-05-03  6:28             ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqv981c0zw.fsf@gitster.g \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v3] git-merge: rewrite already up to date message' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).