From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (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 C179D63CF for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 20:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714766918; cv=none; b=lbVRfIlTa4h4LAYweQ7hNCXZOzSHepDklZ5BY34Z+/kkkSQCtKQBwzITc5VDmx7oawZxdWryiyjoXRGaBlnrM3+ExL8EwUhC9SF99d1bJRZthxKPJEA9t7X7MIzPyBM3XzCmO3TAMOd8WbpH0JvUfqFxRvrCh55HkwCsjk4qlKY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714766918; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hNH6UhZTnF/21uph6MeO5bsLw5artIuXzPdbyVcUCTQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YNd0hYo5DMEYkm00ngtn8CqJeiSeZRsTX88sO0I5rIiFAgBxI4iRyMc/WmwmzV5Vj0TkjgdGKaHCU9ogkmIivaB4q/Bw3kSmm9UlXoedpWtN/84VeJ1ujCbqOXfZn1VTOzxcshDNFYnegBdlNID69mOsC0IZ8Kqej0r1Iu31G4c= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=fITpUaXa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="fITpUaXa" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73BB27AAA; Fri, 3 May 2024 16:08:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hNH6UhZTnF/21uph6MeO5bsLw5artIuXzPdbyV cUCTQ=; b=fITpUaXawH3eWxkNUB4FxNI4taRcEyVKpCWoHtXMJvu/e2cqLyfBWk Nz18igaFpz6wHCWPUEWNNM1eiTPSeFbNM88x/3KClnA4pZz8bgL9b4It91k7V7jI rschW13wdcTy8/yU2dSehGdMUt+2g+HfS3Scq5YD0tZhlnC6XNWQo= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECCA27AA9; Fri, 3 May 2024 16:08:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.120.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C22227AA8; Fri, 3 May 2024 16:08:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Dragan Simic , James Liu , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH v4 0/3] advice: add "all" option to disable all hints In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 03 May 2024 12:48:47 -0700") References: <20240430014724.83813-1-james@jamesliu.io> <20240503071706.78109-1-james@jamesliu.io> Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 13:08:34 -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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EBF4A40C-0988-11EF-ACC9-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Junio C Hamano writes: > Eric Sunshine writes: > >> different. Aren't both commands addressing the same use-case of >> comparing one version of a series against a subsequent version? In >> your response[3], you seemed to agree with that observation and >> suggested instead simply increasing the default creation factor for >> both commands (which sounds reasonable to me). > > I think Dscho's use case was compare only single updated series of > his with seen that has tons of irrelevant other patches, to have the > command sift the patches belong to other topics away while making > comparison with the older incarnation of his topic. I never use the > command for such a comparison, but I can imagine that in such a > context lower criteria may help reduce false matches of his new > commits with unrelated commits on 'seen'. It seems that Dscho was in agreement that format-patch's use case should try to be more aggressive at least back then. In the message in the thread you pointed https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903211209280.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/ he does not give us the exact reason why he does not think the "more aggressive" mode is not suitable for other use cases, though. A similar thread was raised more recently: https://lore.kernel.org/git/rq6919s9-qspp-rn6o-n704-r0400q10747r@tzk.qr/ Also, there was an attempt to clarify what the "factor" really meant, but we did not get a real conclusion other than the UNIT to measure the "factor" is called "percent" (without specifying what 100% is relative to, "percent" does not mean much to guide users to guess what the right value would be). https://lore.kernel.org/git/85snn12q-po05-osqs-n1o0-n6040392q01q@tzk.qr/ So, yes, --creation-factor= is messy, I think a very high value, much higher than the hardcoded default of 60, is more appropriate for use in format-patch, but we do not know what bad effect it would have if we used much higher default everywhere.