On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:25:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > When I applied this locally, I used this patch as a replacement for the > > last patch of v3 [1]. That kept everything passing after each patch. > > Oh, so this is a replacement for 5/5 and 1-4/5 of v4 are supposed to > be identical to those from v3? The difference between [v3 5/5] and > this one is a single typofix on the subject line, it seems, though. Yes, at least that's what I interpreted it as (and how I applied it when testing). I'd like to hear from the author to make sure. (As an aside to the author, I often fall into the trap of thinking that it will be easier to send a single replacement patch which will generate less email, but--as you can see--it is often more complicated for reviewers and the maintainer to decipher what's going on. It's often just easier to re-submit the entire series and include in your cover letter "this is unchanged from v(n-1) except for ..."). > >> As you've demonstrated through the microproject that you can now > >> comfortably be involved in the review discussion, I am tempted to > >> suggest that we declare victory at this point and move on, but I > >> don't know what the plans are for the other 4 patches (I guess we > >> won't miss them that much---the micros are meant to be practice > >> targets). > > > > Yup, ditto. > > As [v4] single patch won't apply standalone, we cannot quite declare > the victory yet. Are [v3 1-5/5] (or [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]) good to the > reviewers of the past rounds? For what it's worth, I'm happy with [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]. Thanks, Taylor
