Re: [PATCH v2] doc: imply that interactive.singleKey is disabled by default

> Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> writes:
> 
>> On 2024-05-22 23:34, Dragan Simic wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-22 23:31, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> 1:  3141fe9f7328 ! 1:  7da73f15a018 doc: note that
>>>>> interactive.singleKey is disabled by default
>>>>>     @@ Metadata
>>>>>      Author: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
>>>>>       ## Commit message ##
>>>>>     -    doc: note that interactive.singleKey is disabled by 
>>>>> default
>>>>>     +    doc: imply that interactive.singleKey is disabled by 
>>>>> default
>>>>>          Make it clear that the interactive.singleKey
>>>>> configuration option is disabled
>>>> Heh, "note that" would probably be better, as we are going to say
>>>> "Make it clear" anyway, no?  That is stronger than just to imply.
>>>> Keeping the original version of the log message probably was
>>>> sufficient.
>>> Yeah, but I felt like it needed some adjustments, because the patch
>>> itself was actually changed.  I hope I won't have to send the v3
>>> because of that? :)
>>> 
>>>>> +	When set to true, allow the user to provide one-letter input
>>>>> +	with a single key (i.e., without hitting the Enter key) in
>>>>> +	interactive commands.  This is currently used by the `--patch`
>>>>> +	mode of linkgit:git-add[1], linkgit:git-checkout[1],
>>>>>  	linkgit:git-restore[1], linkgit:git-commit[1],
>>>>>  	linkgit:git-reset[1], and linkgit:git-stash[1].
>>>>> 
>>>> The resulting text reads well.
>>>> Nicely done.
>>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Just checking, is there something left to be addressed for this patch,
>> before it can be considered to be pulled into the next branch?
> 
> Thanks for pinging, as these small things were on the back burner
> while preparing for updates to maintenance tracks.
> 
> Apparently v2 cannot be pulled into the next branch, and I forgot if
> I saw v3 already.  In general, unless I explicitly say there is no
> need to resend (sometimes with conditions), I'd expect an updated
> iteration sent to the list.