From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B77C4321E for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 00:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235278AbiLCAxZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:53:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38540 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234956AbiLCAxI (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:53:08 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 140FC1FA for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:46:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id p24so6125360plw.1 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 16:46:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=z3up2WS8nOk3q0+s9W1Yv+4Hr0Swajy0G5r149Zg7h0=; b=NHu/UM9QftrEL7WvelCMpve11IMwE5ywLhg31znXylvJE4QFhbpCOOCh1gXOnpXdWu PTv+vg8hCzi+kiBG/A1bYYSfeFPq7oqPwgd0JQGbm+MmL12wi6hgIB3+hIrCq3VjvGFp Xq88622uni3YkC6Hgf2KPAVIF126JR+ZCy9tsma7evifv+0ZWDij/K0EdqBmlm23Xth5 TlWBMq2Cy7b68kww+V9uMFHnyodsWBjB4lt1TH1z4/47S51iZ60n54qojlEwlEVIIo8w HOOoJRVejhe+rZQFWfjOxDBU6AWVl0lwxzCVAXy1DQxn53vMJGd2D7vBj+OkoOPYXw4I d9vw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=z3up2WS8nOk3q0+s9W1Yv+4Hr0Swajy0G5r149Zg7h0=; b=Rf62ZH9puUdsHo1qJeXBhBjuCojDiNrNXQKcsQm9lAONlhY/dP4MrOh7p5qZ7MQE6X /6UG9/2Jr127RlMfrajMqcrdyobg7q3deC10x4GTq/OzxRx0EsdXlinEkr6lvdFJz4xT D4Ngl7OeMN+5B0uy5ueXIEEBF9bYeYXUY3Qo9T9Kqv7pgyPKTbKJnsluY2J2Wf93UpPj yU62nTTeQ0px4ytmHMqnhBNBsLnQlPr1tFgTzru7OV2leFmVO0eGNgmfExObXdeCP7Xp GNssAvmn5GbAeEFO1cdt5jCFQcuEIAwcCwNosVybGivIa9NLCxyAk7x2yK1ts7Y2bWuD xXxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pk06fgFnXLAHGvrGMNmdZMtA81mwYwWbFn4NOHyamG02rRYeWfU ZD6WoknBTAchIQmnK1j83M8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf54/s+h869S9Z0j9jlYTBEM1I5Jp8wvwKhzmT6RJhe/89ZN/LIfSJkhgG6kKPJBSYAi+DazSw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6904:b0:185:3f7a:50cc with SMTP id j4-20020a170902690400b001853f7a50ccmr54075593plk.99.1670028388329; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 16:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (33.5.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.5.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14-20020aa7968e000000b0056bee23a80bsm5658235pfk.137.2022.12.02.16.46.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 02 Dec 2022 16:46:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Git List , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH] t4205: don't exit test script on failure References: <221202.86edtihgga.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <221202.86a646hdb6.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2022 09:46:27 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:45:10 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: >> In my mind that's better than a "LGTM" or "Reviewed-by". Those are both >> versions of "I looked over your work", but if you independently come up >> with the same thing that's usually a stronger sign that the proposed >> solution is a good one. > > Not necessarily. > > Past effort that did not fare well needs to be re-examined to make > sure it was not picked up because it was crappy, because two people > independently coming up with the same crappiness does not help us > build more confidence. Instead of forcing other reviewers waste > their time looking at older threads, it would help to explain what > you find good in the patch you are reviewing. Related to this, another thing you often do is very helpful: to say that the patch being proposed solves the same problem another patch that is already in our tree solved in a different part of the code base. If it was good for another part of the system, it is likely that the same solution may be a good fit for the part being touched as well. Compared to that, referring to an earlier patch that failed to hit our code base is not all that helpful. Thanks.