From: Dragan Simic Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 22:21:18 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: imply that interactive.singleKey is disabled by default Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hello Junio, On 2024-05-31 19:23, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dragan Simic writes: > >> On 2024-05-22 23:34, Dragan Simic wrote: >>> On 2024-05-22 23:31, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Dragan Simic writes: >>>> >>>>> 1: 3141fe9f7328 ! 1: 7da73f15a018 doc: note that >>>>> interactive.singleKey is disabled by default >>>>> @@ Metadata >>>>> Author: Dragan Simic >>>>> ## 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. I see, but I'm not really sure is there need for the v3? Maybe the patch description could be tweaked a bit further, but I wasn't under impression that you asked for that to be done? Am I wrong there?