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

Hi Jonahtan,

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

quoted

quoted

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