From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2012021F for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 21:35:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756990AbcHBVfA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:35:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60090 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754608AbcHBVew (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:34:52 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A24133D3B; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:27:03 -0400 (EDT) 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=md6BLsBMdJQigxtrVIi/aMm0giA=; b=RaEDQe LEhS4lXpR7FUj/d2K8BjWpQ2fo2izkdQjv3a4iwQrl+gkmtQPgNVUR1nuVM8iR2h v7oOjqqFclh9zrNSdaYotNE/AzsKmrtWM4iKvXdjtxx6yNu0ytkYxnZcS+Ir8fZt bjmZmtG+NgPazoKDtgBfvDsgX3HQhsCX+Euew= 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=av4dnkXFw35OmKN5ikNrUPG0kUBnk5f8 y/okAxpVceYVMjEifeVa7NdlKOmUDSY2Yc4V7n9P1MpI/7YPDlD75KqOKCDvR0jz mS5SHrdFJRx3lapZgT3GTi87rYx2fviYIirx8bnAsWpn+1am+L0QOmiekcFZYDgz RIqwnmT4lQw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1174F33D39; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EDA933D35; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:27:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors References: <8ff71aba37be979f05abf88f467ec932aa522bdd.1470051326.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:26:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:12:29 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DA609448-58F7-11E6-9E54-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> > There are a couple of places where return values never indicated errors >> > before, as wie simply died instead of returning. >> >> s/wie/we/; > > Right. What can I say, I am surrounded by too many Germans. > > I fixed this locally, in case another re-roll should be required. What you > have in `pu` looks correct to me, though. Let me know if you want me to > re-submit nevertheless. I usually do this kind of obvious typofix and consistency fix without even mentioning them in my review comments to reduce the noise levels. But that works better ONLY if the patch authors then fetch from 'pu' and replace their copies with what I fixed up already and base their reroll on top by amending and/or building on top (of course, that also requires my local fix must all be limited to uncontroversial ones). So either I should change my workflow and mention any and all typofixes in my review comments (which consumes the review bandwidth), or I should force patch authors to do the "fetch from 'pu' and replace" somehow to avoid this kind of back-and-forth. I am not sure which should be the way to go.