From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Witten Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Docs: git tag Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:59:48 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1301327622-8595-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> <7v8vvzyvdi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4D917B5E.1000600@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 29 16:00:28 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4ZT9-00045C-Io for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:00:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752706Ab1C2OAV convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:00:21 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:65495 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751866Ab1C2OAT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:00:19 -0400 Received: by iyb14 with SMTP id 14so202328iyb.19 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:00:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I+4TXRDU2YH7JKItiyPdLnpDIEpF9TMK17+lB82aYNY=; b=Cp5G/J23tV6k6m+uqbEPRKOPRB+nlwNGqQWRmkWTi9PwfTc5iANy0WHWeS4zD3/O5I pDqFYDWaHMRuZiPpS1vU8QLSc5+U6jGfAMAtMPp9lW4KD0EONjipcMMKe/IbquBrVO6E 5VarHRYOIHcYMYvFh0ojfrhV9e2bRyqyNuZ1U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XBXG94OusxwH8z2YrTKIpBf4CUDvnpQhGtENbkKB7S78e1NUQnCAegUwfCxFISyBdn Hmz7cKFbrxQhDPe84l7ed/n6WaScs1M5kVBycMiZtzn41QP/Qu17FAIbpEjV2YdKSEIW 4iMeTWhX6j6+xAXwSETiMt23LHnIxESqmV5RM= Received: by 10.43.49.69 with SMTP id uz5mr9225632icb.133.1301407219029; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.138.199 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:59:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D917B5E.1000600@drmicha.warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 01:25, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 28.03.2011 20:04: >> Michael Witten writes: >> >>> Small patches fixing up the `git tag' docs. >>> >>> Michael Witten (10): >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Add `the' >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: peoples back -> people's backs >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Revise a paragraph. >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: other's -> the other person's >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Streamline a sentence. >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Add missing 'the' >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Use 'who' again >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Remove superfluous 'with' >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Use semicolon >>> =C2=A0 Docs: git tag: Rewrite discussion of GIT_COMMITTER_DATE >> >> Thanks; all looked sensible changes, except for 7/10 which I somehow= find >> the original is more readable than the new text, partly because the >> sentences are shorter but more importantly because the two sentences= make >> two separate assertions (the first is about what "one-shot" pull mea= ns, >> the second is about why automatic tag following is not desired in th= at >> situation). > > Looked mostly sensible to me (and I share Junio's view on 7), too, > although I probably would have changed "other's" simply to "others'". I probably chose the singular variant for 2 reasons: I generally prefer singular renditions, and the sentence is referring to an example of a pull-request from one individual. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 01:25, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Those 10 patches could have been 1 actually, they are really divided > into atoms (which is not bad per se) even though they all fall under > "cosmetic language corrections and improvements" without any content > change nor restructuring. It's always hard to tell what delineations will be appreciated. However, it's almost always the case that the smaller a patch is, the more quickly it can be reviewed and approved (also, the smaller the diff, the more meaningful the commit message), so I err on the side of too small; after all, it's generally much easier to squash than to split. Of course, I would have no problem if Junio ultimately saw fit to squash some or all of them (with a note that such squashing has occurred). Thanks for your input.