From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA423DA7F1 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774457716; cv=none; b=A/0aq8+zh+JwN/97s47ZYJtaSjHId9Owf2GXQuJjjijbIMYp9ih2sQIfaQIigOSVvgtqBaF2WRi/yfyVdhMP3rh8YWBUYOxKw52CqQWh2NOzsS0ui+kJ19gdjED4AMkf5iCjuZxaS21p5NNmAcETuj9m9m3044aZpF8dfx6TQF4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774457716; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3oB4411tOwZP+Vz+GM5TB7p+MkAjKZfv6DMrZcT/jB4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SMPsQu8x3OF0/hDGlw0XYp1HTTyq9eTt8fDKl9CLnr7jXIxtXu7yvq1yjoOX9ene8fwGx3BNbhCo76NlifScL/PZk4MTXp8rOGKQqDOVWGs/clBRkHbdobSWeu+7T3ZuxPXSDAOCnsBCjdlmoGXczuifVk6kCorj3Up7AJ0ShvA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=b3HKCL/w; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=kczUoPwJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.157 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="b3HKCL/w"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="kczUoPwJ" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0571400289; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:55:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1774457709; x=1774544109; bh=EKKlx8O+FL sKxUXFUpQtIaP/5MMG18QkZ4IocRw6VQw=; b=b3HKCL/wbCLp9xpVtFkVKfGAX0 Po3mj6TdtokD7ApDXu34khfSCpUENbZugEsuCGJKPKOeeDi/fSOIXRveLALSmmN5 SweBjwhfiiC26axVrd1+k4uV1L4+rGU0A4P1T79vVqLkBdzBMj/J0cNDRrcifMV8 m0piZkQwP3rxFxsAOEOAlwJTzUnTaw5D197D91k7FdxYq6xCTM2gzOEZlbPeevjz C+tg5y+Mb9/izxIVtcXnbN9xpOGzTPUERaNZCjGAIuUf14oJulPdySvTEBouahmX s9I2iuAayBmXHz/u6FVPayBVV3uovqmPv8OMnKwScXemH9IwcsoVudZ3l3VQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1774457709; x=1774544109; bh=EKKlx8O+FLsKxUXFUpQtIaP/5MMG18QkZ4I ocRw6VQw=; b=kczUoPwJNhAjeEV1jwLvCDrJ6CxdJqhaGLwVdSQBRCjzeg8oc8W m/LoylVvODJ1I1YXe/xORXTrZvuzLctj+fkqcSsQz9GyU24bY/B4Z2JvyrzDRdy3 lQ/hE7J6W76EHQebcSwW0DqGg2WGDbD4fX/KmFImgjSsKLgh8U59XOXnGlorxo+D tU4UjqDlhxC86riCjVjWbAb4nmegU//P6EO3RZfkJehH8QFoegbMTKZkfl95HW8e 4AnKXY0asJwkLO/jgKUALTyVW1+INzXONpiliCIMuG9oegQWhE7GZ+EDX/QdLYiA p6gyXeeE5DWH37PgkvM3kpT6NtSsOISx+dQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdefvdegleelucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepiedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehmrghhlh gvthdrthgrkhgrshhsrgesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgv rhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheplhhutggrshhsvghikhhiohhshhhirh hosehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhlthhosghlvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgt ohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:55:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Mahi Kassa , git@vger.kernel.org, lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com, jltobler@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] repo: show subcommand-specific help text In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Wed, 25 Mar 2026 11:01:31 +0100") References: <20260323152937.257406-1-mahlet.takassa@gmail.com> <20260324184843.299223-1-mahlet.takassa@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:55:08 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: >> v3: >> - include the requested code changes that were missing from v2 >> - factor shared usage strings into macros to avoid duplication >> - restore blank lines between tests and before test_done > > By the way, it is highly recommended to respond to some of the review > mails directly, as it helps to create a dialog between submitter and > reviewer. Otherwise reviewers may feel as if they are talking to a code > emitting entity :) > > It's not necessary to reply to every single mail, but going like "Oops, > yes, I indeed forgot to add the request code changes. Will fix in the > next version" can go a long way to make the interaction more social. Hear! hear! A new iteration without any introduction is harder to accept without such a pre-warning to suggest what the author thought after getting suggestions in earlier reviews. Did they agree and took the suggestion? Did they disagree but took the suggestion anyway, and if so why did they think the suggestion was not such a good change? Did they disagree and did not take the suggestion and if so why? They changed the code but not in the way suggested in the review, but why the new way was thought to be better than both the original and the reviewer input is unknown?