From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8A9C77B7D for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 04:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230037AbjEJE0f (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2023 00:26:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39426 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229468AbjEJE0d (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2023 00:26:33 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB5881987 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-51b661097bfso4750539a12.0 for ; Tue, 09 May 2023 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683692792; x=1686284792; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:subject:cc:to :from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=z/vkP1owWF50y8HzDbVj/HxorTrcYSdfpZMkQtfcPcw=; b=cF5n/2uQAVIbpb9I1Zwys+Ox31vTI/1O75zrQht4TLgqAq3BSH5mDUctYb+s/FpzPG TYDslkd1c6knxx6RSyvPz81K8glVcojD4myIEXFssc/2u6JOuahQms6Ny7p7Wsmw8a/q hg6Z4ISCAW8RSS8jMrBC813/ZRz3prSJnMarpD6xJc1xo9LobiRnAJyJ1a8VCFDKLZdv APSvh30PFeEANcG+jwf0WGWr1MsEvgGm7o3iai1Qh/YgoJZOrRv1DNE3jZZG91W9BC50 EQkI/f3KNcb1gS91chO4YOX1OlWay3gdLx79WHoHmVOJ8s8t3K6qFES/3rT+NnrrExOG KTrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683692792; x=1686284792; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:subject:cc:to :from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=z/vkP1owWF50y8HzDbVj/HxorTrcYSdfpZMkQtfcPcw=; b=SEGAmy8Y57HIGbtotCn46eatqyfPs4p03OxdAFSYbVWd7L6ecAgebwjCeEcrcHekfu slNO6LQIXo0FpYr3s8kCp0clEWRNSIa43hMMYw6cdHHeosNAWWzovsDH8JQWL0leTWa2 1yHDcHcB1gLRUwvYfuQ5ebS58xJd3nWSljrWrVjYzpvwVoe+L8PRMcVIbiWteza4AZzJ YmsmMxNDknD90IogJ0H1f1V2Hvb77UNw8AbexOWlol396yRcDgFSLirGugXUNkNmeJKV yxGasEh0iRHBGmCS3hAoErsJCCV5TgVGCG0/lJYWA/hixz+FC+PSNUfcid7lNaWNV8vb bn7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyM/7FLJdWvO6JIjRobfGLBo5IkzEylJ4U/2VB28UekMMgt6Dfh 0qAmT4biyUX5ZJEUCNBDsWK2EvEA2r4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ64j2L/qIIvOzCO4m6eHAnX/QukuMSrqW0cYR2uJark+R4N1nidTkXxsvtRG+8u1QX18KeRhw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:72a7:b0:ff:d067:34f with SMTP id o39-20020a056a2072a700b000ffd067034fmr15873889pzk.33.1683692792075; Tue, 09 May 2023 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (187.137.203.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.203.137.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j24-20020aa78018000000b0063a1e7d7439sm2604593pfi.69.2023.05.09.21.26.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 May 2023 21:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Felipe Contreras Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] diff: fix interaction between the "-s" option and other options References: <20230505165952.335256-1-gitster@pobox.com> <645995f53dd75_7c6829483@chronos.notmuch> <6459c31038e81_7c68294ee@chronos.notmuch> Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 21:26:31 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Felipe Contreras writes: >> > Is it though? >> >> Yes. >> >> If the proposed log message says "as intended", the author thinks it >> is. > > The question is not if the author of the patch thinks this is the way > `-s` is intended to work, the question is if this is the way `-s` is > intended to work. The "author" refers to the author of the "proposed log message" of the patch in question, i.e. me in this case. The author of the patch under discussion thinks it is, so asking "Is it?", implying you do not agree, is nothing but a rhetorical question, and doing so, without explaining why, wastes time on both sides. I am not interested in getting involved in unproductive arguments with you (or with anybody else for that matter). I've been giving you benefit of doubt, but I'll go back to refrain from responding to your message, unless it is a patch that I can say "I agree 100% with what the proposed log message says and what the patch text does, looking great, thanks. Will queue." to, which has been my default stance. Past experience tells me that to any review other than "100% good", I would see responses in an unpleasant and hostile manner. Anything that asks clarification for something unclear in your patch, or suggests alternatives or improvements. And it led to unproductive and irritating waste of time number of times, and eventually you were asked to leave the development community for at least a few times.