From: Illia Bobyr Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:28:49 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] Long names for `git log -S` and `git log -G` Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 2/11/25 10:07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Illia Bobyr writes: > >> I've split the big change from v3 [1] into multiple, mostly independent patches >> to make it easier to review and merge each one separately. >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250206014324.1839232-1-illia.bobyr@gmail.com/ >> >> Patches 1 through 4 are fixing minor bugs and inconsistencies. >> >> Patch 5 contains updates gitdiffcore to use same placeholder names as the rest >> of the code. >> >> Patch 6 contains a minimum change to add long versions of -S and -G. >> >> Patch 7 adds bash completion support. >> >> Patches 8 through 10 increase usage of the long argument versions in tests, CLI >> help and docs respectively. >> >> Please, let me know if you prefer it split in a different way, or reorder the >> changes. > > When you base your patch on a different base than 'master' (or if > the previous iteration of the topic has already been queued in my > tree, then the commit used as the base to queue the topic), please > make sure you state it clearly. > > This iteration seems to apply on none of bc204b74 (The seventh > batch, 2025-02-03), on top of which the previous round dcc02caba2 > (ib/diff-S-G-with-longhand) has been queued, or any of the recent > tips of 'master', like 388218fa (The ninth batch, 2025-02-10) or > 9520f7d9 (The eighth batch, 2025-02-06), so I cannot look at it. Sorry for the confusion.  I randomly decided to check if my changes have any conflicts with `next` and rebased on top of it. Did not realize it would affect the patches. I've rebased back on top of `master` and published as v5. >> I was not sure if I should include a reference to the previous version of the >> patch into the next reroll.  It seems that >> `Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc` suggests so. But it creates very long >> threads.  And I've noticed that not everyone is doing it. > > Almost everybody does so, actually. > > Taking a topic that has 5 iterations, each about ~20 patches, as an > example: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250207-pks-reftable-drop-git-compat-util-v5-0-ba2adc79110f@pks.im/ > > it is perfectly clear and easy to nagivate from the list of messages > what discussions we had in previous iterations. Thank you for the explanation and for sharing an example link. I'll use v3 cover letter as a reference point for v5, as I have already interrupted the reference chain in v3. >> Reply to review notes ... > > It is more customary to Reply-all directly to review messages, > instead of sending new round of patches.  When the cover letter of a > new iteration is sent as a response to the cover letter of the > previous iteration, readers can find the previous discussion > messages. Got it.  Thank you.  I have replied to your review email, so that we can continue the conversation there.