From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 72FA31D530 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712335462; cv=none; b=A4nPk0gRcmBlwp5SuFdUzCrnOJICsVXhmsWsQrglaPeA9kUg/uTkykxCqv6VBIFePn4QvXYbHKxk4JFPqo4OG6Z3ooFJ+AEVWUF4roO2uGuTc5ZRqRM0amV7t4/rERgQVDBYMV9n9E1oGVXjM98+eBIjcQMPobGdiwfOe8/GSGk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712335462; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oQL0K2/ZJTk9tusVdvpo7lXQ5ZHdoGWwfL8FQLvP9h8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=D5zv+orYhlWDf8FF65bYCGKOZ1hDLjW8s11q6H1XRi0J08lsvgbhsknzBXRD4WtltaLwyWfLO65xSHIxCTe2X/mJGk77v0b+E1yoZ1FQ3R+5axhgkEwRG9GpLlX8lhYyF1FagqV31vFsBibzc7jtOEOfwX1yPMqEg27je7wfc28= 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=eNiyRbk4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 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="eNiyRbk4" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5991EFA87; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:44:18 -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=oQL0K2/ZJTk9tusVdvpo7lXQ5ZHdoGWwfL8FQL vP9h8=; b=eNiyRbk4+rgZ7ZO5KgrQ+YehopD2F33PNsc9hNrAVQ3Bj7nCtIB01g NIEUw9ATAfhaIfgTsqtbaVA1AmjZitEu3ZbdukMTPja13NJe+bxvsqG3F7k5rUS9 5rHT+bGcC9aoAIKi2D7OvGAKGAK2W4rW91DgduXP0Wv3HNUISBauw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AFD1EFA85; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:44:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.229.118]) (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 B83C91EFA82; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:44:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Dragan Simic Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] send-email: make it easy to discern the messages for each patch In-Reply-To: <8d47bd687f2ad80bbc1e1c86ae337327@manjaro.org> (Dragan Simic's message of "Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:44:42 +0200") References: <0e087ed992def0746f3d437253248904c2126464.1712262791.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <8d47bd687f2ad80bbc1e1c86ae337327@manjaro.org> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 09:44:16 -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: BE78A164-F36B-11EE-B490-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Dragan Simic writes: > Well, I actually wasn't lazy, but instead I wanted to give this patch > better chances to be accepted, by introducing as a small amount of > changes to the code as possible. This was a lesson not to take that > route, but to do "the right thing" instead. The lesson you should be taking is a bit different here, though. As we discussed, doing the separator correctly is harder and doing the terminator correctly is much easier and less error prone. So if we chose to do terminator semantics and punt on doing separator semantics, the right thing could have been to adjust the existing tests to make sure that the new output with unnecessary trailing blank line is expected. Either that, or we should fix the code not to break the current expectation. Doing neither of these is not quite acceptable--- that is the lesson from this episode, I would think. Thanks.