| Message ID | 20230809171531.2564785-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | t/lib-rebase: (mostly) cosmetic improvements to set_fake_editor() | expand |
Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> 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? My time quota today to pick up newly sent patches has run out, and we will be in pre-release freeze period any time now, so there is no need for an immediate response, but please help readers easily see which ones are proposed updates that are still surviving. Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 02:15:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> 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. regards
Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 02:15:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> 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").
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: >> 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. Now I did, so instead of queuing this as a replacement of the three, one of the three from the earlier has been replaced with this, and the push-out of tomorrow will have them in 'seen'. This piece-meal replacement may break threading on the mailing list but if we ever need v3 and later for this topic, we will see the entire set resent (hopefully), so the problem will correct itself. Also if everybody is happy with all three patches, we may not need v3 ;-) Thanks.