Re: [PATCH 1/6] doc: update-ref: drop “flag”

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2024, 15:30 UTC
Message-ID: <24297144-c08f-4bc4-89dc-c3d8c12523de@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZxA5ni7McD1c1yuf@nand.local>

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024, at 00:09, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 4:46 PM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 09:03:10PM +0200, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote:
>> > > -With `-d` flag, it deletes the named <ref> after verifying it
>> > > +With `-d`, it deletes the named <ref> after verifying it
>> > >  still contains <old-oid>.
>> >
>> > It looks like we may want to re-wrap this paragraph after tweaking the
>> > wording on the first line.
>>
>> I think we typically avoid rewrapping after minor edits like this
>> since rewrapping introduces unnecessary noise which makes it more
>> difficult for reviewers to identify the important (actual) change.

I was skeptical at first. But I saw that this line is only 55 characters long. So I think (like Taylor) that rewrap is in order.

What if I make a commit with just that word drop and then an immediate fixup! commit which wraps the paragraph? That way the review is still straightforward. And hopefully the integration part is not complicated further.

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> I have done it in the past myself, since I often find the result of
> re-wrapping much nicer to read. But I see what you are saying, and
> certainly don't feel strongly.
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor

-- 
Kris