From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qv1-f43.google.com (mail-qv1-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4AF6A346 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713338263; cv=none; b=oDUNVHAblY3ZX+X6lXgUIatPZok8DBzpjIpr3mkLHHn0dv2Dwt1dVmU91FKaGj08uoMmIpbbkcVh3chXpLUuUxHpdnmviYpJPAFQUxOanmXdf3LombsiI56WreL4Tlsy/JZXdYmO+f4zZLbSTFPMljyyQTIPPawdSTfcUYu0pF0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713338263; c=relaxed/simple; bh=q5s2dJNBK4BZcdTJA7PoaP11gjk2h2esHdhFl6e6MSM=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=IgehEda2vscwt27tmp7muNZ8YHbxTiZ/SZPwRCCPDK4y2LpDH3rq3fi/94n1JJDmmoGo2Y3pjVWNcKxoGytZX2wKmuHNTrOaNywFM1f15yX8MGtgfuLdWUu8E9ljYr8nun0XeOLblenZEIHjYoB7Zky3GGbz+pfiaaPFnanA3JY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sunshineco.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sunshineco.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-qv1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-69b0f08a877so27241746d6.0 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:17:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713338261; x=1713943061; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u20GOtsvDlkiO1S9avLFFJOmdikkqlXvFFpGvaKGae8=; b=BWFyazQLlQqMfl/5zD8NoAwjXbmLzoTVeYnsQj/YQTELFrAMzzG8w3fu8RhT8tdIdV fC0S8geEXkE/WbAVqQ2CfWqoJ49eaoQyJdvTpwgYC602/EKeoCZCu7BLGX/umVquL/Fw zGhHpNfhlMxHNmTW0tSeTVyzVgI2eeFg6Y5irJ4H4BFqSJAsdAy/WU5081JSesOHx37j BeSXmtgGl2x8qgqXOwFQixwBhYEgx3yi1S+rQPQKcMCm8QWUbY35CrS0XRaO4osL8Qva LeYwvbGO8V8A9VlFCLNx7GoX87LQretm5ERKWs5n61rr1vFxaGiFRETiOI9o2F8do3Xn VK9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx9G0CIciVqcnohiyWclA4ocS4gKVrmoi1HWLKbHaCpBW07HHxM FJW1uMVPh4xMMmcEWE7B1yuzGvhFG/SJ90iCNKcw4OthMaI6c7foXSoKcz+h3TgFIEW3WOKkKI+ 4KfmUF1KTeGYadR0poHjJmbxEVEU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGfG3l8DlgtRpFuMdY+NZqRTRu/dXz7VIjMXESW20xNlLgiwcYeKmIoA4Fy2h1Cxl0hqWVymR/kf/j7a8pDXQE= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ee8f:0:b0:69b:57db:9182 with SMTP id u15-20020a0cee8f000000b0069b57db9182mr13714012qvr.14.1713338260806; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1d9c6ce3df714211889453c245485d46b43edff6.1713324598.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Sunshine Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:17:29 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects To: Dragan Simic Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 3:05=E2=80=AFAM Dragan Simic w= rote: > On 2024-04-17 08:35, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33=E2=80=AFPM Dragan Simic > > wrote: > >> - die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used > >> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc", "-k"); > >> + die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used > >> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc/--resend", "-k"); > > > > You probably want to be using die_for_incompatible_opt4() from > > parse-options.h here. > > Thanks for the suggestion. Frankly, I haven't researched the > available options, assuming that the current code uses the right > option. Of course, I'll have a detailed look into it. > > > (And you may want a preparatory patch which fixes the preimage to use > > die_for_incompatible_opt3() for --subject-prefix, --rfc, and -k > > exclusivity, though that may be overkill.) > > I'm not really sure what to do. Maybe the other reviewers would > prefer an orthogonal approach instead? Maybe that would be better > for bisecting later, if need arises for that? The comment about using die_for_incompatible_opt4() in this patch is the meaningful one. You are very welcome to ignore the parenthesized comment about a preparatory patch. There is probably very little value in such a patch to fix the preimage to use die_for_incompatible_opt3(), only to then apply this patch which updates it to use die_for_incompatible_opt4(). That would just be busy-work for you and for reviewers. I mentioned it only because I noticed that the preimage was doing it wrong (not using die_for_incompatible_opt3()), which presumably misled you into continuing that mistake.