Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> If we were to do this, I would probably suggest a preliminary patch >> that refactors the hardcoded "reroll_count - 1" out of diff_title() >> so that the helper takes two "reroll count strings", i.e. reroll >> count for this round, and the previous round, as two separate >> parameters. Teach the caller to pass "reroll_count - 1" for the new >> parameter in this preliminary step. > > However, if it's only a minor correction to the major version, > I _think_ it makes better sense to compare with the major version > instead of comparing with another minor version. I wanted to have no opinion on this, as what is expected out of the fractional iteration count by people would be different depending on whom you ask. The "-1" suggestion was a fallback to allow those who supply integral reroll count not to explicitly say what the previous round was from the command line. I do not particularly care how the previous round for fractional iteration count were computed by default when the user did not give one explicitly from the command line. > When a reviewer reviews v3.5, they can just compare to v3. > In a hypothetical world, when another reviewer jump in and a major > change required, v4 reroll also compare with v3. > > In other words, we will have something likes: > > - v3 vs v2 > - v3.1 vs v3 > - v3.2 vs v3 > .... > - v4 vs v3 > > The good side of this approach is: the logic to choose previous > version is simple. > > The downside of this approach is: reviewers need to re-read the > changes in v3.1 v3.2, etc... However, we can reasonably expect those > changes are small enough, they're minor changes after all. > > And they will need to re-read all the change if the major verison was > increased.
