Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] format-patch: confirmation whenever patches exist

Firmin Martin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

True.  But if we require confirmation before overwriting patches,
that would be overall worsening the end-user experience, I am
afraid.  In a 5-patch series with a cover-letter that was formatted,
proofread, corrected with "rebase -i" and then re-formatted, unless
you rephrased the titles of the patches, you'd get prompted once for
the cover letter (which *IS* valuable) and five-times for patches
(which is annoying).

This is true for this patch, but the semantics changed after the patch
#3. I really should have squashed them together to not create
confusion. Sorry about that.

No, please keep them separate.  What we can do to avoid confusion
like I showed is to make a note on the earlier one, saying "with
this the user experience looks like this, which may be suboptimal
for such and such reasons, but in a later step it will be improved
in this and that way".

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Firmin Martin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

True.  But if we require confirmation before overwriting patches,
that would be overall worsening the end-user experience, I am
afraid.  In a 5-patch series with a cover-letter that was formatted,
proofread, corrected with "rebase -i" and then re-formatted, unless
you rephrased the titles of the patches, you'd get prompted once for
the cover letter (which *IS* valuable) and five-times for patches
(which is annoying).

This is true for this patch, but the semantics changed after the patch
#3. I really should have squashed them together to not create
confusion. Sorry about that.

No, please keep them separate.  What we can do to avoid confusion
like I showed is to make a note on the earlier one, saying "with
this the user experience looks like this, which may be suboptimal
for such and such reasons, but in a later step it will be improved
in this and that way".

Ok, it's noted.