Re: [PATCH v2] [Outreachy][Patch v1] t3404: avoid losing exit status to pipes

[Usman Akinyemi <usmanakinyemi202@gmail.com>]

Hello,

I really appreciate all the maintainers for their help and time.

I am a bit confused now, I am already working on converting the
test_line_count right now. Can I update the patch or do something
regarding the first patch ?

Thank you.

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 12:06 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 7:12 AM shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > > It probably would have been helpful to reviewers if the patch's
> > > commit message mentioned that it only converts some of the
> > > instances, but it's not worth rerolling the patch just for that.
> >
> > Except that, the commit title should not either include
> > "[Outreachy][Patch v1]" here. From these two reasons, I think we should
> > reroll the patch.
>
> Your observation about outdated/confusing "[foo]" annotations is
> certainly something the submitter should take into consideration for
> future submissions, but does not seem worthy of a reroll, IMHO. First,
> `git am` will strip those off automatically, so they won't become part
> of the permanent project history anyhow when/if Junio picks up the
> patch. Second, asking for a reroll for something which does not impact
> the correctness of either the patch or the commit message just makes
> busy-work for the submitter and wastes reviewer time (which is a
> limited resource on this project). Third, the point of a microproject
> is to expose the submitter to the workflow of the Git project and to
> the review process, and for reviewers to see how the submitter
> responds. That goal has already been achieved in this case, and
> rerolling for something so minor provides no additional benefit in
> that regard.