Re: [PATCH 0/3] mingw: introduce a way to avoid std handle inheritance

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 1, 2017, 17:07 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1711011737460.6482@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <20171031180933.styinoik4npmd53b@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Jonahtan,

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 
> >> Can this rationale go in the commit messages?
> >
> > I thought I had done exactly that in 1/3...
> 
> Okay, I'll be more specific.  This cover letter includes some
> information about the rationale and motivation for the series.  That's
> great: it makes reading the patches easier.  But TBH I'd rather that
> it hadn't included that information at all, since if it said "see
> patch 1/3 for rationale" then I could save the trouble of reading the
> same information twice.

Alas, I am the exact opposite. You see, I am seriously short on time, and if the cover letter of a patch series leaves everything about the changes unclear, I throw my laptop out the window (actually, I suppress the urge and just delete the mail thread in my mail reader) and move to the next mail.

It sounds a bit stupid to cater to myself in patches *I* submit, but I refuse to believe that there are many people with more time on their hands than myself (last time I tried to research this, it looked as everybody has the same 86,400 seconds per day available, give or take the occasional leap second).

> And unfortunately much of the relevant information is not repeated
> there.  The cover letter mentions:
> 
> - that Visual Studio is a motivating example

That was actually on purpose. Personally, I want to read the motivation in the cover letter, and not get distracted by it when reading the commit logs.

To make you happy, I added this, though.

> - that this is conceptually similar to Unix sockets

To make you happy, I added this, too.

> - that those do not need to be marked as inheritable, as the process
>   can simply open the named pipe. No global flags. No problems.

I just added "(and therefore no inherited handles need to be closed)" to the last sentence of 1/3's commit message that already mentioned this.

> - that this has already seem some testing in Git for Windows (i.e.
>   analagous information to what a Tested-by footer would say)

I mentioned this twice, in 1/3's and in 3/3's commit message.

> It is also just more readable than patch 1/3's commit message.  That's
> to be expected, since it was written later.  My second draft of
> something is often clearer than the first draft.

I took your cue and simply replaced the first paragraph of 1/3's commit message by the first paragraph of the cover letter.

Ciao, Dscho