Re: [PATCH v2] [Outreachy][Patch v1] t3404: avoid losing exit status to pipes

>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 08:06:10AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
> > Your observation about outdated/confusing "[foo]" annotations is
> > certainly something the submitter should take into consideration for
> > future submissions, but does not seem worthy of a reroll, IMHO. First,
> > `git am` will strip those off automatically, so they won't become part
> > of the permanent project history anyhow when/if Junio picks up the
> > patch. Second, asking for a reroll for something which does not impact
> > the correctness of either the patch or the commit message just makes
> > busy-work for the submitter and wastes reviewer time (which is a
> > limited resource on this project). Third, the point of a microproject
> > is to expose the submitter to the workflow of the Git project and to
> > the review process, and for reviewers to see how the submitter
> > responds. That goal has already been achieved in this case, and
> > rerolling for something so minor provides no additional benefit in
> > that regard.
>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation here. I don't know that "git am"
> could strip those off automatically. I thought the maintainer would
> delete "[foo]" manually. So, my main intention here is that I want the
> submitter to make it more perfect to reduce the overhead of the
> maintainer and also pay attention to this for further submissions.
>
> And from my perspective, the reroll would not bring much overhead for
> the submitter, so I expressed my words in the previous email. I know you
> concerned that my words would frustrate the Usman. And I wanna say this
> is not my intention here. I think Usamn has already done a great job for
> this microproject to understand the workflow of the Git project. So,
> actually we are on the same boat here.
>
> Let me withdraw my previous words ("We should reroll the patch"). This
> patch is good and don't need a reroll.
>
> Thanks,
> Jialuo