Re: Re* [PATCH v2 0/2] add-p P fixups

["Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote:

> Fixing a problematic change with a new commit isn't the best idea if
> we have the opportunity to prevent the problem in the first place, as
> Phillip pointed out.  Since rj/add-p-pager is still open, it's
> worthwhile to amend the problematic commit.
> 
> Of course, we've now updated the documentation [*1*] and reinforced
> [*2*] the mechanisms to prevent this from happening again.
> 
> However, I think adding a comment about the issue to the amended
> commit, which I think it has been suggested at some point, seems to me
> like a good addition.  I do not believe that a future reading of the
> change will lead to confusion for this reason.  The added comment does
> not document a fix, I think, but rather it is an explanation of what
> we're doing in the commit.
> 
> Furthermore, we capture in the history, IMHO, notes of how things have
> happened, which is also why I intend to apply this series on
> 506f457e489b2097e2d4fc5ceffd6e242502b2bd, to only amend the last two
> commits.
>
>  1.- jc/doc-one-shot-export-with-shell-func
> 
>  2.- es/shell-check-updates

After re-reading the series today, I still believe the change in the
message for [2/2] or rebasing on 506f457e48, add value to the series,
but I also see that it's not a significant improvement.  Besides that
minor detail, IMHO, I think we have consensus on the changes.

I'm not going to send a new iteration, not because I'm against
changing the message, but because I think we are entering, if we
aren't already, the realm of bikeshedding.  

Once the changes settle, I'll send a new series to address the new
"|[cmd]" command.

For reference, this was the first message about the 'P' command:
1d0cb55c-5f32-419a-b593-d5f0969a51fd@gmail.com.  After all, I was only
interested in reviewing hunks longer that one screen height ;)

Thanks, all.