From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3807E1772F for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 08:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712393773; cv=none; b=dqJ+WoxU1+IylT2NePspJ81wMaELO5nO5ucc+VZoxoKjkiLxVJPJIMhKxSRLSrKCiBoZWxzApAoR0yrbJD0lAtaEWOo/mggB0Bzbi5klotPKEkO4d2nKPxagMf36TBqhKBVB7ZXxk5hj4nShDXS7OyRcUlgGV2TSoExNdq88tvw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712393773; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nROJKlK+v5Wi1vvyu60umx1lXmehynSwcYaiwk28DXs=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=ux6bV5/vJLJBgPoTP+l5JFcgQnDOjGMv3YlMdLLSqc/Dv93SrL5Q4OQO008exOCBSlCXn6zuSS8LQmLEeE+0Kaj7EeInVBDJaR3CSgOUGwSStKOv8xb4F0HZIZGTOd3NjNns8h4J9HMV3BoSUuj4sA2U2TGID+xTBS81ttTcqK4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=KcSvI2au; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="KcSvI2au" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1712393768; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+UhWLcxaMYSoOHl/7dImzap9fhdut/UvFL8CCW2FBoE=; b=KcSvI2audh6z1yHPL6cjWBpIdh4gGVqrtOqMYiCZ9wy+fRavj0pys7v6kwQR8DXKejXL/9 dxlbTjSsxwkCgaY4hTnRIKkxbp7x3pyHjCisSyexGB6+W7SB1pBZRnMCUJNQCwC/0zZ2cL Vz7GV3eRV4Sm4a7b94oVWEpNVt+K5vrdKPbYXBigAHXsOY65tYNMBT7fPB5cTENmOYwdYS 7VVvTY0b5XqBs8emLGWF0blyrXTTL2X5BFtNKC7PzbypUwGMnPixhm4V/XdSPXZlxsJODe g8+eGssAnlHt8xFLfCT+GEceBgNb9SlKEU6xaNH05YRByofvbeJNUhtH9UUkPg== Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:56:07 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, code@khaugsbakk.name Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] send-email: make it easy to discern the messages for each patch In-Reply-To: References: <8a9f4927aab96f2f62e2467e59fb6150d7e931fc.1712367983.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-04-06 07:40, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dragan Simic writes: > >> Following the approach of making the produced output more readable, >> also >> emit additional vertical whitespace after the "Send this email >> [y/n/...]?" >> prompt. > > Hmph. I'd prefer to see you try not to endlessly extend the scope > of a topic. > > By including the above change, the patch no longer is small and > focused enough, which was the reason why we said that the "let's > move the final newline out of the translatable string" can be done > as a "while at it" change. > > Besides, because of the switch to separator semantics, that hunk > lost the reason to exist as part of the "use a blank line between > output for each message"---the change no longer is needed to support > the feature. > > Even though it is a good change to have, and it deserves to be > justified by its merit alone. > > The whole thing deserves to be a three-patch series, the first one > being a preliminarly "let's move the final newline out of the > translatable string" step, followed by "let's have a gap between > output for each patch sent out". Perhaps another "even during > sending a single patch, we may want extra blank lines when use of > editor and other user interation is involved" patch on top. > > I haven't formed an opinion on that last step, and I do not think I > can spend any time to think about that new part of the feature for > some time (others can review that part and give their opinion on it, > of course, while I'll be working on other topics). It would mean > you are adding yet another feature to delay the base improvement to > stabilize. You really do not want to do that. Quite frankly, I think all these changes are small enough and understandable enough to be fine for being squashed into a single patch. See, I love perfection and I'm also kind of a perfectionist, but such an approach can sometimes actually become counterproductive. That's what I usually refer to as being pragmatic, in the sense of making things a bit less perfect but still fine, in the interest of "getting things done", so to speak. I hope it makes sense. However, if you insist I'm also perfectly fine with splitting this patch into a three-patch series. That would make it perfect, there's no doubt about it, but would it be a pragmatic approach, worth the additional time and effort? Perhaps not. > In any case, this [v4], as a single ball of wax, is not something I > can confidently say "I reviewed this and looks OK".