On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 8:50 AM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Justin Donnelly <justinrdonnelly@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > I hope this is against protocol/etiquette, but after some initial > > > feedback from Junio, I haven't gotten any more. I wasn't sure if > > > nobody had seen the patch, or if there just wasn't any interest. > > > > It probably is a bit of both. I personally did not see much point > > in adding the long "conflicts" marker to the shell prompt (I did > > worry about possible complaints by end users triggered by seeing > > them suddenly without asking, which was why I commented on the > > patch) and I was waiting for interested folks to speak out. > > Speaking for myself, I was too busy elsewhere. But now that I looked over > the patch, I think it is fine. My only feedback is that it would be wise > to only add a single test case because that is plenty enough (after all, > it validates the `ls-files --unmerged` call and not the `cherry-pick` > code) and it is unnecessary to waste the electricity on additional tests > cases (even if somebody else foots the bill, it would do well for all of > us to start being more mindful about energy consumption). That makes sense. I'll get started on a re-roll to just have a single test that focuses specifically on the conflict indicator. > > Ciao, > Dscho Thanks, Justin
