Jean-Noël Avila [off-list ref] writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jean-Noël AVILA [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The choices here may be awkward; no problem to propose even more descriptive
names.
quoted
Similarly "the 'format:<format-string>' format" feels highly
redundant, I expect the reader knows that <string> contains a format
inside it as it's mentioned immediately before *and* after.
The fact that it is a string doesn't tell you much about what you can do with
it. For me, this isn't a problem that the explanation is redundant.
I agree that --format:<string> is quite poor, as type alone does not
give readers any information on what it means and how it is supposed
to look like. Calling it <format-string> does make quite a lot of
sense.
It is a bit less obvious how much value we get out of <bool-value>,
though. In --opt=<arg> scheme of things, what comes after '=' are
all <value>s, so <bool-value> does not clarify over <bool> like the
way <format-string> clarifies over <string>.
Agreed. Should reroll the patch series?
I guess another (hopefully the final) reroll would not hurt (but we
are not in hurry---this may be among the topics that graduate early
in the next cycle, but not during this cycle).
Thanks.
Hi,
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jean-Noël Avila [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jean-Noël AVILA [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The choices here may be awkward; no problem to propose even more descriptive
names.
quoted
Similarly "the 'format:<format-string>' format" feels highly
redundant, I expect the reader knows that <string> contains a format
inside it as it's mentioned immediately before *and* after.
The fact that it is a string doesn't tell you much about what you can do with
it. For me, this isn't a problem that the explanation is redundant.
I agree that --format:<string> is quite poor, as type alone does not
give readers any information on what it means and how it is supposed
to look like. Calling it <format-string> does make quite a lot of
sense.
It is a bit less obvious how much value we get out of <bool-value>,
though. In --opt=<arg> scheme of things, what comes after '=' are
all <value>s, so <bool-value> does not clarify over <bool> like the
way <format-string> clarifies over <string>.
Agreed. Should reroll the patch series?
I guess another (hopefully the final) reroll would not hurt (but we
are not in hurry---this may be among the topics that graduate early
in the next cycle, but not during this cycle).
I fear that it won't be as easy to send the next iteration as one might
think: GitGitGadget works off of open Pull Requests on GitHub. And the
branch for the Pull Request corresponding to this series has been deleted,
thereby permanently closing the Pull Request (it cannot be reopened
anymore): https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1066#event-5541689437
That means that none of GitGitGadget's convenience can be used to send v3
with a range-diff. All that can be done at this point is to open a new
Pull Request, generate a range-diff manually (which could very easily
differ from the actual range-diff, whether by design or mistake) and put
it into the cover letter, then send a "v3" (which is actually a v1).
Ciao,
Johannes
On 11/3/21 8:38 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
I fear that it won't be as easy to send the next iteration as one might
think: GitGitGadget works off of open Pull Requests on GitHub. And the
branch for the Pull Request corresponding to this series has been deleted,
thereby permanently closing the Pull Request (it cannot be reopened
anymore): https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1066#event-5541689437
In fact, I know you *can* re-open such a PR. The author of the PR would
need to restore the branch in the fork, and ensure that the latest
commit on the branch is the same commit that it was when the branch got
deleted.
I know this is possible because I've accidentally deleted branches that
I thought were already merged, when they got reused for another PR that
was still open --I restored the PR by restoring the branch immediately,
I *think* github may offer a button to do that on the PR webpage but I'm
not sure.
--
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User