From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 9AE6E33C8 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714344932; cv=none; b=mZc042CkqdaIGFDx50PFsYj3VKNVxVSRVTHJgkzSIg/l4jOcZdquSj18E9RMI54RQ5UNAbb7AwIsak8Lb2ntDc7P21XgpdUGAI+/iksIqeIg29OSksfcLC9lXCZzC7h/CIAUO08npYx7YYUFgPQ1jk/+X9OvK7fopacRSRy0RhE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714344932; c=relaxed/simple; bh=u2q+CqZy4yMSI9FQTUXX1uVq13TavXbNNppWEoRByMI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=R82Gzt/t9ih/Wt5PECEb7+flmaFCVk5cYNeTFmclHZuQcftgaWyVl7V3S7xSDX4RO7ESZqoJmRl0I/co8XeHcl1IFnlZcw/ukIyNgmUoSoMXZHxfz6wu0qNjO/pCYgRpNAgib8TAf3HayfrqddFQWaXOGBuPnKR2dfstQ8j/wTQ= 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=Lkde0iLn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 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="Lkde0iLn" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC70230B76; Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:55:24 -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=u2q+CqZy4yMS I9FQTUXX1uVq13TavXbNNppWEoRByMI=; b=Lkde0iLnRuuBjf9SjOwN1Rht8c0o wTmu+HVPFQsZhFhiqI9ZVzwazi8mVSuXzc3ZashNClGL/wgiE+MdXSfboNus/pMi 9dKsQxYJQMQXG9KrNRecUj/OvO4h4i25m14SxXs/vaA0XpU7toQhfR7V2OjXixKe MUGoJnHdwx8PlFs= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D548330B75; Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:55:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.120.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C86AD30B74; Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:55:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Britton Kerin Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] completion: don't complete revs when --no-format-patch In-Reply-To: (Britton Kerin's message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:49:08 -0900") References: <9627364b-c0c9-4b85-a81a-ba1ef0735c9a@smtp-relay.sendinblue.com> <20240109010830.458775-1-britton.kerin@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:55:17 -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: 6332C600-05B2-11EF-958A-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Britton Kerin writes: > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:57=E2=80=AFPM Patrick Steinhardt = wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 04:08:30PM -0900, Britton Leo Kerin wrote: >> ... >> While this second hunk here makes perfect sense to me, there is no >> explanation why we need to change `__git_find_last_on_cmdline ()`. It'= s >> already used with "--guess --no-guess" in another place, so I would >> think that it ought to work alright for this usecase, too. Or is it th= at >> the existing callsite of this function is buggy, too? If so, we should >> likely fix that in a separate patch together with a test. >> >> Also, adding a test for git-send-email that exercises this new behavio= ur >> would be very much welcome, too. > > I'll look this one over again and add some tests eventually. It has been a while, but is there any progress on this topic? Thanks.