Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] Long names for `git log -S` and `git log -G`

[Illia Bobyr <illia.bobyr@gmail.com>]

On 2/11/25 10:07, Junio C Hamano wrote:
 > Illia Bobyr <illia.bobyr@gmail.com> writes:
 >
 >> I've split the big change from v3 [1] into multiple, mostly 
independent patches
 >> to make it easier to review and merge each one separately.
 >>
 >> [1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250206014324.1839232-1-illia.bobyr@gmail.com/
 >>
 >> Patches 1 through 4 are fixing minor bugs and inconsistencies.
 >>
 >> Patch 5 contains updates gitdiffcore to use same placeholder names 
as the rest
 >> of the code.
 >>
 >> Patch 6 contains a minimum change to add long versions of -S and -G.
 >>
 >> Patch 7 adds bash completion support.
 >>
 >> Patches 8 through 10 increase usage of the long argument versions in 
tests, CLI
 >> help and docs respectively.
 >>
 >> Please, let me know if you prefer it split in a different way, or 
reorder the
 >> changes.
 >
 > When you base your patch on a different base than 'master' (or if
 > the previous iteration of the topic has already been queued in my
 > tree, then the commit used as the base to queue the topic), please
 > make sure you state it clearly.
 >
 > This iteration seems to apply on none of bc204b74 (The seventh
 > batch, 2025-02-03), on top of which the previous round dcc02caba2
 > (ib/diff-S-G-with-longhand) has been queued, or any of the recent
 > tips of 'master', like 388218fa (The ninth batch, 2025-02-10) or
 > 9520f7d9 (The eighth batch, 2025-02-06), so I cannot look at it.

Sorry for the confusion.  I randomly decided to check if my changes have any
conflicts with `next` and rebased on top of it.
Did not realize it would affect the patches.
I've rebased back on top of `master` and published as v5.

 >> I was not sure if I should include a reference to the previous 
version of the
 >> patch into the next reroll.  It seems that
 >> `Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc` suggests so. But it creates 
very long
 >> threads.  And I've noticed that not everyone is doing it.
 >
 > Almost everybody does so, actually.
 >
 > Taking a topic that has 5 iterations, each about ~20 patches, as an
 > example:
 >
 > 
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250207-pks-reftable-drop-git-compat-util-v5-0-ba2adc79110f@pks.im/
 >
 > it is perfectly clear and easy to nagivate from the list of messages
 > what discussions we had in previous iterations.

Thank you for the explanation and for sharing an example link. I'll use v3
cover letter as a reference point for v5, as I have already interrupted the
reference chain in v3.

 >> Reply to review notes ...
 >
 > It is more customary to Reply-all directly to review messages,
 > instead of sending new round of patches.  When the cover letter of a
 > new iteration is sent as a response to the cover letter of the
 > previous iteration, readers can find the previous discussion
 > messages.

Got it.  Thank you.  I have replied to your review email, so that we can
continue the conversation there.