Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Add mailmap mechanism in cat-file options

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:28 PM Siddharth Asthana
> <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In this patch series we didn't want to change that '%(objectsize)'
>> always shows the size of the original object even when `--use-mailmap`
>> is set because first we have the long term plan to unify how the formats
>> for `git cat-file` and other commands works. And second existing formats
>> like the "pretty formats" used bt `git log` have different options for
> 
> s/used bt/used by/
> 
>> fields respecting mailmap or not respecting it (%an is for author name
>> while %aN for author name respecting mailmap).
> 
> [...]
> 
>> = Patch Organization
>>
>> - The first patch makes `-s` option to return updated size of the
>>    <commit/tag> object, when combined with `--use-mailmap` option, after
>>    replacing the idents using the mailmap mechanism.
>> - The second patch makes `--batch-check` option to return updated size of
>>    the <commit/tag> object, when combined with `--use-mailmap` option,
>>    after replacing the idents using the mailmap mechanism.
>> - The third patch improves the documentation of `-s`, `--batch`,
>>    `--batch-check` and `--batch-command` options by adding they can be
>>    combined with `--use-mailmap` options.
> 
> So the documentation patch is now part of this small series again.
> 
> Even if this documentation patch is a bug fix, it might be better at
> this point to squash this patch into the patches 1/3 and 2/3. At least
> I think that would better follow Junio's last comments about this. If
> you go this way, you might want to squash the documentation parts
> about -s from patch 3/3 into patch 1/3 and the rest of patch 3/3 into
> patch 2/3.
> 
>> = Changes in v4
>>
>> - Improve the documentation patch to clearly state that the `-s`,
>>    `--batch-check`, `--batch-command` and `--batch` options can be only
>>    be used with `--textconv`, `--filters` or `--use-mailmap`.
> 
> Here I think you should say that the documentation patch is part of
> this series again and explain a bit why.
> 
> Anyway I took a look at the actual patches in this series and they
> look good to me now. So I would be Ok to merge it either as is or with
> patch 3/3 squashed into patches 1/3 and 2/3 as discussed above.
> 
> Thanks!