Got it, I'm learning along the way, and thanks for the reply! -- Thanks, Shaoxuan On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 7:59 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:51 AM Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:34 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In this case, the indentation of the entire body of the for-loop needs > > > to be fixed to use tabs rather than spaces, however, fixing all the > > > indentation problems together with the other problems can make for a > > > too-noisy patch for reviewers to really see what is going on. As such, > > > it may be better to make this a multi-patch series in which one patch > > > fixes indentation problems only. > > > > > As mentioned above, changing the body of the test from double- to > > > single-quoted string should (presumably) be okay since the body gets > > > eval'd and `$p` will be visible at the time of `eval`, however, mixing > > > this sort of change in with all the other changes being made makes it > > > hard for reviewers to spot such little details, let alone reason about > > > correctness. As such, switching of quote types is also probably the > > > sort of change which should be split out into its own patch. The same > > > comment applies to other changes following this one. > > > > I think so. I was thinking fixing all the general styling issues in one > > patch (since they are all style related), but now I realize that the general > > style patch can be divided into sub-patches for clearer review experience. > > > > And my question is, should I do this "multi-patch series" thing in the form of > > "-v<n>" (all under this thread), e.g. "v2" or "v3"? Or I just submit > > multiple patches separately (a new thread for each one)? > > A multi-patch series as v2, v3, etc. would indeed be appropriate, as > you already figured out[1] before I got around to answering belatedly. > > > > Overall, with the exception of the test title which needs to > > > interpolate `$p`, the rest of the changes are probably reasonable and > > > benign. It's important to understand that lengthy patches like this > > > full of mechanical changes tend to be quite taxing on reviewers, so > > > it's a good idea to help in any way you can to ease the review burden. > > > This can be done, for instance, by making only a single type of change > > > per patch (i.e. indentation fixes), or by limiting the scope or > > > breadth of the changes, which is especially important for this sort of > > > > I'm not quite sure what this means, and I quote, "limiting the scope or > > breadth of the changes". Are you suggesting, for example, > > fixing fewer occurrences of tab indentation issue in a patch; or, for > > example, limiting the > > fix to a specific "test_expect_success" block, and do multiple patches > > sequentially? > > Sorry for being unclear. I just meant that as a microproject, it would > have worked equally well to pick a much smaller test script with style > problems (if you could find one) rather than a long script. After all, > the purpose of a microproject is to give you experience with the > submission-review process and to give reviewers and mentors an idea of > how you interact. It's the process which is important, in this case, > not the size of the submission. > > Anyhow, it looks like Junio is happy with your v3 and will be merging > it down to "next", so it all worked out. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220202064300.3601-1-shaoxuan.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx/ > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqr18jnr2t.fsf@gitster.g/
