On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 6:47 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Side note:
>
> I'm generally trying to see if just sending a "proposed vX" is
> more productive for everyone than patch feedback effectively
> describing it in prose. I don't mean for this thing to be picked
> up as-is by Junio without the consent of the submitter, and don't
> have any desire to "pick up" the series myself.
>
> I really like the end goal of
> <20210830072118.91921-1-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> series, but this
> seems like a more straightforward way to get to that goal.
>
> I.e. the original 1/3 and 2/3 starts out by making the tests
> whitespace-independent. If we just skip that 1/3, and then in 3/3
> tweak the relevant failing tests for the code change we won't even
> need a new test, all the existing tests previously made
> whitespace-independent in 1/3 will assert this new behavior.
It probably won't surprise you that this fix to `notes` started out as
a single patch which made the change to `notes.c` and adjusted the
existing tests to account for it. In particular, my original changes
to t3301 were exactly the same changes you made (i.e. merely dropping
the empty-line `${indent}` from the few necessary places). I wasn't
happy about the additional complexity I had to add to t3303 and t9301
to continue plucking the notes out of the default git-log output, thus
simplified by making those tests less brittle. That, of course,
deserved its own patch. I wavered quite a bit about whether to make
t3301 less brittle too, or to simply apply the minimal changes which I
had already made (and which you made independently). Eventually, I
decided to split that out as a brittle-fixing patch, as well, to
better future-proof it, but perhaps that's terribly important.
I don't have strong feelings between my v1 and your v2 of this series,
and would be happy to see Junio pick up either version.
