On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Make color which was considered as an atom, to use >>> ref_formatting_state and act as a pseudo atom. This allows >>> interchangeability between 'align' and 'color'. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >> I think 1/10 and 2/10 are the other way around. Preferably, these >> would be three patches, in this order: >> >> (1) prepare the "formatting state" and pass it around; no other >> code change. >> >> (2) have "color" use that facility. >> >> (3) add a new feature using that facility. >> >> The first two may want to be combined into a single patch, if it >> does not make the patch too noisy. > > Ill reverse the patches and merge the first two as you suggested. While reviewing patch 1/10, it required more effort and was distracting to have to separate out (mentally) changes which were specific to the new %(align:X) pseudo-atom and those which introduced the "formatting state". As such, it probably would be a good idea to aim for the three distinct patches suggested by Junio rather than aiming, up front, to merge the first two. After all, they are conceptually distinct changes, and keeping them separate is friendlier to reviewers. In the end, you may find that patch 1 is so trivial that it can be merged with patch 2 without making review more difficult, however, keeping them distinct during development helps you avoid conflating unrelated changes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html