From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] merge-file: let conflict markers match end-of-line style of the context Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:19:55 -0800 Message-ID: References: <13379804ad901b53d78d741156677664924fc50d.1453819314.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Beat Bolli , Jeff King , Eric Sunshine , Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 27 19:20:20 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aOUhY-00033M-2G for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:20:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934395AbcA0SUQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:20:16 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:53861 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934217AbcA0ST7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:19:59 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A933D449; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:19:57 -0500 (EST) 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=1XsUqjcDe3ZgK0l7rF6OPEQqL7E=; b=wcDJgN JLlQzmzEgn+0TxmfdtT0X5g5YeDA/EClFexFxu520aO0+PdJzjDHR8/SPMqfHrlq 380QYjWt+9QB8mkyM4P6FDbjrsOQ76lv/y5cFdPEG2KPYFgamvU/5niPy3b3UMYo nzyGTgtdPvrsAQVnAG8+RsmrB/WY93LycrNj8= 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=ZXBPEpYYbtIdmRAFIA8rD0Fk6n+6nlmy h6Fo4SlYXn3MTw99sY8sPqd5zDjvEwPSY/ptHuI1X8z0Q03AnzxVx+mYVJexQ5Em W0jTH3yG/x+wT2/LTFMxaQ++aSYco9hO+OhJNlLR0jMr3uwfVmm9uR/4bw24yCC1 Z9JCTbQ1Jx4= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C9A3D445; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [216.239.45.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D471C3D443; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:19:56 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:58:59 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 91C0561A-C522-11E5-900C-80A36AB36C07-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: >> Just in case it was unclear, none of the comment above means I want >> any part of the patch redone--I am happy with this patch as-is. > > Thanks for saying that... I was about to try to make things clearer, but I > could not think of a better term than "needs_cr". I don't, either ;-). The primary reason I respond with the "I find this a bit confusing but it probably is just me" (not just to this patch) is to give an example of a review comment that demonstrates to the others that the reviewer understood what is in the patch and the issues around the change better than a mere unsubstantiated "These look OK to me.", which does not tell us how carefully the proposed change was reviewed by the reviewer--such a review does not allow me to "trust the review that is already done by others" and apply the patches with minimum cursory scanning and I end up having to carefully read them myself.