Re: [PATCH 2/4] format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Apr 17, 2024, 06:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTEp799w2-VEACYThW0COyo0SJLRS_sr-PG=LX++Tompw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c975f961779b4a7b10c0743b4b8b3ad8c89cb617.1713324598.git.dsimic@manjaro.org>

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> wrote:

> format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014

Reviewers assume that a conscientious patch author will add tests when appropriate, so stating that you did so is unnecessary. Thus it's safe to omit "and add a test to t4014" without negatively impacting comprehension of the subject.

    format-patch: ensure --rfc and -k are mutually exclusive

Show 5 quoted lines

> Fix a bug that allows --rfc and -k options to be specified together when
> executing "git format-patch".  This bug was introduced back in the commit
> e0d7db7423a9 ("format-patch: --rfc honors what --subject-prefix sets"),
> about eight months ago, but it has remained undetected so far, presumably
> because of no associated test coverage.

Everything starting at "...about eight months" through the end of the paragraph could be easily dropped. Reviewers understand implicitly that the bug went undiscovered due to lack of test coverage.

> Add a new test to the t4014 that covers the mutual exclusivity of the --rfc
> and -k command-line options for "git format-patch", for future coverage.

Similarly, no need for this paragraph. As a conscientious patch author, reviewers assume that you added the test, so this paragraph adds no information. Also, the body of the patch provides this information clearly without it having to be stated here.

Show 10 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
> @@ -2050,8 +2050,11 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> -       if (rfc)
> +       /* Also mark the subject prefix as modified, for later checks */
> +       if (rfc) {
>                 strbuf_insertstr(&sprefix, 0, "RFC ");
> +               subject_prefix = 1;
> +       }

I'm not sure that this new comment (/* Also mark... */) adds any value beyond what the code itself already says. It may actually be confusing with its current placement. Had you placed it immediately above the `stubject_prefix = 1` line, it would have been more understandable, but still probably unnecessary since anyone studying this code is going to have to understand the purpose of `subject_prefix` anyhow.

At any rate, I doubt that any of these review comments on their own is worth a reroll.