From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:29:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8dd3bf56d595801e0f262329a0000ea4@manjaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTEp799w2-VEACYThW0COyo0SJLRS_sr-PG=LX++Tompw@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-04-17 08:15, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> wrote:
>> format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014
>
> Reviewers assume that a conscientious patch author will add tests when
> appropriate, so stating that you did so is unnecessary. Thus it's safe
> to omit "and add a test to t4014" without negatively impacting
> comprehension of the subject.
>
> format-patch: ensure --rfc and -k are mutually exclusive
Makes sense, but the previous authors obviously weren't diligent
enough to include such a test, which presumably made the fixed bug
remain undetected for so long, so I wanted to put some emphasis on
the addition of a test.
>> Fix a bug that allows --rfc and -k options to be specified together
>> when
>> executing "git format-patch". This bug was introduced back in the
>> commit
>> e0d7db7423a9 ("format-patch: --rfc honors what --subject-prefix
>> sets"),
>> about eight months ago, but it has remained undetected so far,
>> presumably
>> because of no associated test coverage.
>
> Everything starting at "...about eight months" through the end of the
> paragraph could be easily dropped. Reviewers understand implicitly
> that the bug went undiscovered due to lack of test coverage.
I have no problems with dropping that part, but IMHO that's nitpicking.
Also, dropping it would delete some of the context that people might
find useful later.
>> Add a new test to the t4014 that covers the mutual exclusivity of the
>> --rfc
>> and -k command-line options for "git format-patch", for future
>> coverage.
>
> Similarly, no need for this paragraph. As a conscientious patch
> author, reviewers assume that you added the test, so this paragraph
> adds no information. Also, the body of the patch provides this
> information clearly without it having to be stated here.
With all the respect, I think that having that paragraph is actually
good, because explaining it clearly provides good context for the
repository history and people reading it later.
>> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
>> @@ -2050,8 +2050,11 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char
>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>> - if (rfc)
>> + /* Also mark the subject prefix as modified, for later checks
>> */
>> + if (rfc) {
>> strbuf_insertstr(&sprefix, 0, "RFC ");
>> + subject_prefix = 1;
>> + }
>
> I'm not sure that this new comment (/* Also mark... */) adds any value
> beyond what the code itself already says. It may actually be confusing
> with its current placement. Had you placed it immediately above the
> `stubject_prefix = 1` line, it would have been more understandable,
> but still probably unnecessary since anyone studying this code is
> going to have to understand the purpose of `subject_prefix` anyhow.
Setting such flags should actually be performed in a callback,
but in this case creating a callback isn't warranted, IMHO. Thus,
that comment tries to explain why a flag is set out of place.
I have no objections against removing this comment, if you find
it doing more harm than good.
I didn't place it immediately above the relevant line because it
also applies to the adjacent block for the --resend option, and I
wanted to reduce the code churn that would result from placing it
immediately before the relevant line, and moving it a couple of
lines above just a couple of patches later.
> At any rate, I doubt that any of these review comments on their own is
> worth a reroll.
Well, I need to split the series anyway, so the v2 is pretty much
inevitable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-17 6:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-17 3:32 [PATCH 0/4] format-patch: fix an option coexistence bug and add new --resend option Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 3:32 ` [PATCH 1/4] format-patch docs: avoid use of parentheses to improve readability Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 3:32 ` [PATCH 2/4] format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014 Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:15 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 6:29 ` Dragan Simic [this message]
2024-04-17 6:27 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-04-17 6:56 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-18 9:12 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:33 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-04-17 6:40 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 7:11 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 11:38 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-04-17 11:48 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:54 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 12:00 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 3:32 ` [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:14 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-04-17 6:36 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:43 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-04-17 7:16 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:35 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 7:05 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 7:17 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 7:25 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-18 20:04 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 10:02 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-17 10:52 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 11:31 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-04-17 11:34 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 11:40 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-04-17 11:43 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 15:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-17 17:34 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 21:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-17 21:09 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-18 3:12 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-18 22:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-19 0:08 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-19 0:15 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-19 0:45 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-19 3:05 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-19 2:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-19 3:07 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-19 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-17 3:32 ` [PATCH 4/4] t4014: add tests to cover --resend option and its exclusivity Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:48 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 7:20 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:02 ` [PATCH 0/4] format-patch: fix an option coexistence bug and add new --resend option Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 6:07 ` Dragan Simic
2024-04-17 6:23 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-17 6:43 ` Dragan Simic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8dd3bf56d595801e0f262329a0000ea4@manjaro.org \
--to=dsimic@manjaro.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.