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 0D8E674420 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:45:55 +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=1722278757; cv=none; b=nnqSPjfz5oNyHvIpgFDL/3Mal2K0VHUu4qzteYJiG5i033++M66vulSbc+/VhHIll7goakXe418CEezroaxdbkVj6jwOo5S1Tr6R27brpZ80necFmE451f5ZL874kijXq1DYNxuFfqHSZ1+67kaWtSe1P46kWKfA+7UQMTDivOA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722278757; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jWLtWU/aJ0A+Kpzp2ZSPQsx1KYbXOyy2UdqepRXS0ag=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IDF9eu1yhbTx80x8HBh47DqaZkQNidqrfOAJbUclzFgFHStnK0JLki9aPbuM4X9ZG2W1/4GWfafl/5gfjGo00tVMSUES4Qwj+ABEfhZgb2kG9vpnJg9hy1xGzfdUnZQ8tk0grZ9ivzKrROxC3JG2w7wFEqip7bZo6ldQwT0+/Ro= 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=XsHyN/6X; 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="XsHyN/6X" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16B02499A; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:45:54 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=jWLtWU/aJ0A+ Kpzp2ZSPQsx1KYbXOyy2UdqepRXS0ag=; b=XsHyN/6XrgA1tdl/jgAcjFRGTE7x Ze1+NhO+36quxyvoVn50DBEKnejw2kV5Duo6CQRX9KAgCa+s4MEpa44RpXaMsbSX DgjGt+IxC5tFxW0PXMNk8RP2e5GQwqDTWDTMy985nd/k/abWh8+Y0uSNfRo1dd7t JVi6uV3ucoP38cA= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75EB24999; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:45:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (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 1F10824998; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:45:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n?= Justo Cc: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Git List Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH v2 0/2] add-p P fixups In-Reply-To: <9e9bbff4-e2e1-4867-8f17-ebc366c7bec5@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Rub=C3=A9n?= Justo"'s message of "Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:11:27 +0200") References: <7c9ec43d-f52f-49b7-b1f3-fe3c85554006@gmail.com> <62af789f-ca19-4f11-9339-a97400f7e70c@gmail.com> <2333cb14-f020-451c-ad14-3f30edd152ec@gmail.com> <5735bee3-0532-4894-b717-12a0bdcb9e84@gmail.com> <97902c27-63c9-4537-8ebe-853ef0cb1d3b@gmail.com> <24e83a0f-b0c8-4cd5-b321-1d7702b844ce@gmail.com> <1dc4cb5d-966a-402f-a880-42280750b949@gmail.com> <9f4c596b-cd6c-4f0c-bed4-dd6febb5e697@gmail.com> <9e9bbff4-e2e1-4867-8f17-ebc366c7bec5@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:45:52 -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; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C8F4001A-4DDA-11EF-B5AE-BAC1940A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rub=C3=A9n Justo writes: > After re-reading the series today, I still believe the change in the > message for [2/2] or rebasing on 506f457e48, add value to the series, > but I also see that it's not a significant improvement. Besides that > minor detail, IMHO, I think we have consensus on the changes. I think we have established that the "Don't attempt a one-shot export with shell functions---it would not work" is not all that important to stress on *in* *the* *context* *of* *this* *series*. After all, that is why the latest shape of the series is not to do the "keep the already known to be bad commit, followed by a fix-up to illustrate exactly why the first one breaks" pattern, which is designed to help future developers when the breakage is rather subtle and we all miss in our initial reviews, but is rather unusual for a topic that hasn't hit 'next' yet. Instead we just correct our mistakes and pretend as if we just got straight to the right solution. So, let's just use what we already have queued, without details that are irrelevant for the final shape of the history that did not have such a screw-up in the code. The "Don't attempt a one-shot export with shell functions" message, as you said, is already captured in a more relevant place to help developers. We could expand that part in the documentation patch, or even a new documentation patch, but this topic, and especially its test part, is about ensuring that the pager support added here will correctly deals with a stuck pipe, and no developers who hit this commit either by browsing "git log" or by finding it in "git blame" would be seeking an advice on "one-shot export", as that is not a mistake this series _did_ _not_ commit, at least to them.