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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2BFC2D0C2 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56276206DA for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="n/CNuYkO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727085AbfLaTHC (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:07:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54875 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727071AbfLaTHC (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:07:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC011B253; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:06:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=gMLXITbhWikeoVSPTg19tSEN4vg=; b=n/CNuY kOB61vHfucoLCTs1B6t2hbMv4LAoRW9TgSY9anLIZwOzf4u4HUCk9KvnBx5FtDC3 P8JSV0GIQpiUVpzJ/ABaB8p8lGFX2fB8j41obNmpKM0dgzfbV0GnF9Gsit9JzRqS DJK1fzK49NOirc+jXySk9oazGqQvVRhpxTeVc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mpYde8FSuQWrX7v5wlnhdhJba5VwopTA SXjChMjJwoG8t5gOsL5HQW3wAGWo+RinNlhOrn6WaXFda4/lauK2U/gZ+mSsS4Ng WoA3N7A2BeWx665ljB2HDN2fZ6rrRuAHwmjUIGIgxe2imr6Ok2AvHArxEmJ/UpdO Z3zw1oKt9vo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01CA1B252; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:06:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BF8C1B24F; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:06:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: gitgitgadget@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, heba.waly@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] commit: display advice hints when commit fails References: <20191231000420.32396-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:06:55 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20191231000420.32396-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2019 16:04:20 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B68EC320-2C00-11EA-8A57-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >> In any case, here is what I tentatively have in my tree (with heavy >> rewrite to the proposed log message). > > Junio, what are your plans over what you have in your tree? If you'd > like to hear Heba's opinion on it, then she can chime in; if you'd like > a review, then I think it's good to go in. On hold until anything like those happens ;-) A random reviewer mentioning something on a patch (either in a line-by-line critique form or "how about doing it this way instead" counterproposal form) without getting followed up by others (including the original author) is a stall review thread, and it does not change the equation if the random reviewer happens to be me. >> I didn't try it on my end. Maybe it won't help much, because we think >> we're going to use the editor right up until we realize it's not >> committable? > > And I think the answer to that is "s" is used throughout the function in > various ways (in particular, used to print statuses both to stdout and > to the message template) so any wrapping or corralling of scope would > just make things more complicated. In particular, the way Heba did it in > v2 is more unclear - at the time of setting s->hints = 0, it's done You mean "less clear" (just double checking if I got the negation right)? > within a "if (use_editor && include_status)" block, but (as far as I can > tell) the commit message template might also be used when there is no > editor - for example, as input to a hook. And more importantly, when > s->hints is reset to the config, we don't know at that point that the > next status is going to stdout. So I think it's better just to use the > v1 way. Yeah, thanks for going back to compare v1 and v2, and I agree with your assessment. > The second area of discussion I see is in the commit message. Commit > messages have to balance brevity and comprehensiveness, and this can be > a subjective matter, but I think Junio's strikes a good balance. As one side of the comparison is my own, I won't be a good judge on this, but yes I tried to strick a good balance as much as possible. I think I've merged it to 'next' yesterday, but it does not mean that much as we are in -rc and it is not such an urgent "oops we broke it in this cycle, let's fix it" issue. If we see a v3 that improves it, I do not mind at all reverting what I merged to 'next' and use the updated one instead (either way, it will be in 'master' during the next cycle at the earliest). Thanks.