From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3319B1C004C for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 17:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719594704; cv=none; b=mfgeVwK955pYNhmemiULnHh5SQa+Sz9+12DafY2GHj20CrDk5HxxZUvYIAwlO/wlstwl+HDQ9jMUrq8POXBmFseXiRwo1H4yScq/gBInSUf3S5H4qzbl+GHGnVrdPSL8cXj2rEerxCuiPY590dLEkCYshdL0+2UXVjqlekQaNXY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719594704; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NHG5o1jwTwYZhEvE6VIJDSzOfB9Bf1LblS01vpXqNGA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Bves+DvBt396ftiIEW8NlXmW+IXZjNayHK1d0uWehLGqirHNKCG6l1+q50oXMkScIzTfEgnBMzOMG6lO5tgdWJ39J65YbmRjM87DKeVjITybvohuQ0nS1n1iaU2rxAFIv2k3E6Uauc/vg2sOXx58fCCyyZVKG+/G5LqHfv29Shg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=bemmmXdF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="bemmmXdF" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F157933E22; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=NHG5o1jwTwYZhEvE6VIJDSzOfB9Bf1LblS01vp XqNGA=; b=bemmmXdFnQg2T5bx1P3GtUT0xSZro9xCaLA3taz+bKsUqPQLTMUoVJ pqjn7zZU+ATJX+OJJfh2SQhx/AtJogMHKz4X7s60F7AUl3K6xX2+gcVScSTcvc5U Fon0/iwUcryARcPs4AY5nxisC5/mjbUi0Aj+LPKF8I8VyZSoCOm6U= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D714A33E20; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.219.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 357D433E1F; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , Eric Sunshine , Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Fix and improve some error codepaths in merge-ort In-Reply-To: <3f1e155f-f559-42ac-9454-8ddcf7873f48@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Thu, 27 Jun 2024 22:45:34 -0400") References: <3f1e155f-f559-42ac-9454-8ddcf7873f48@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:11:39 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7CC0A1DE-3571-11EF-B5D1-965B910A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Derrick Stolee writes: > I saw this in Junio's email about series requiring review, so I took a > look despite missing v1. Stepping through each commit in my local copy > helped make sure that these changes were correct in their proper context. > >> The last two patches change the behavior slightly for error codepaths, and >> there's a question about whether we should show only the error messages that >> caused an early termination of the merge, or if we should also show any >> conflict messages for other paths that were handled before we hit the early >> termination. These patches made a decision but feel free to take those last >> two patches as more of an RFC. > > I also support this change in the final two patches. > > One thing I mentioned in an earlier reply was "why not use an > enum in this tri-state 'clean' variable?" and then I tried to > make just such a patch. ... > ... But I'll leave that as something to think about another time. It > does not change the merit of this series. I left a note about > another "&=" case that wasn't touched, but it's not wrong as-is. Thanks for having done a thorough review, including exploration of an alternative. Really appreciated.