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 0F1F81422AA for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:01:33 +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=1712592095; cv=none; b=XgPi2BFo2PD8Jq3JHEwOIVLsbYSeQFCIIEKooZ8ZPwdSqnmPPY1vlje40ye/NjSx8LWza2cb0AuDbqLzvhIsPOtuCNiZe6/s69OvxPxbAWemC1/jbV3So/Xim5sp16JD0cRp17JPtA8vLe8u6COsb4sEkRR5q4xMmRLNaKIkEhw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712592095; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2WZOiZPK+9/XIje8HpmayxsFErVltWbTr/DSu937Yi8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SanHh0I2FC1iUbbVWQN5pa3jMqrS0L0s/at1vdIj9RNbMNcy3sLaceaQFlewcMqZtD9emgE196OuRPTh44gpDyV8jXa6VvRUuTH2ksuTi0MNDAA9Sf6aN4noFZoJgacO0xvf5HlyxU6ugUJKGqblvtxhwknNVJHWR7C5vVJFJxY= 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=u5k3wBp8; 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="u5k3wBp8" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4451B38F3A; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:01:33 -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=2WZOiZPK+9/XIje8HpmayxsFErVltWbTr/DSu9 37Yi8=; b=u5k3wBp8pnonYXk9Z2DyJN6vZ/4d9XkdTSmZ5UuLfbBQIo0n8QkOM0 X80KLIO/Gvp1es/LLHS/dBwP9/81bI1pzJ6YIdvjC7jemAhXtXj8gyS7+BvHxSTM 0aKG30TUPlBjdLVNfJDtVmNOtn3tnztrbEWWaS3IbyJfUA8Tt+Ydw= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8C538F39; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:01:33 -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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8467938F36; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:01:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Dragan Simic Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, code@khaugsbakk.name Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] send-email: make it easy to discern the messages for each patch In-Reply-To: <6cd48321180195e7070825dbc3f49578@manjaro.org> (Dragan Simic's message of "Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:08:55 +0200") References: <8a9f4927aab96f2f62e2467e59fb6150d7e931fc.1712367983.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <6cd48321180195e7070825dbc3f49578@manjaro.org> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 09:01:28 -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: 42EFCCD6-F5C1-11EE-B74D-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Dragan Simic writes: > On 2024-04-06 19:05, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> The whole thing deserves to be a three-patch series, the first one >>> being a preliminarly "let's move the final newline out of the >>> translatable string" step, followed by "let's have a gap between >>> output for each patch sent out". Perhaps another "even during >>> sending a single patch, we may want extra blank lines when use of >>> editor and other user interation is involved" patch on top. >> Or the latter two could be done in a single patch. I'll have to >> re-review the thing (if I were the only reviewer of the topic) so >> doing so would delay the completion of the topic, though. > > Huh, I've already separated this patch into three patches, and IMHO > they look nice and make everything less error prone. Would you agree > with the three-patch approach, please? My "or the latter two could be done in a single patch" was "alternatively you can", so either way is fine as long as the result is well structured. I know how to explain "insert a gap between patches" well. I do not know which one is easier to explain, between (1) now we have "insert a gap between patches" with patch [2/3], but when editor invocation and confirmation prompts are involved, there are these three cases where we want to tweak the logic to show gaps. Here in patch [3/3] I explain how each of these three affect the logic from the previous step. or (2) We want to insert a gap before showing the second and subsequent patches, unless in such and such cases. We also want to insert a gap when we do this and that. We do all of these in this patch [2/2]. So doing it in three-patches results in a series easier to understand by readers, by all means, please do. Thanks.