Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2024-04-06 19:05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> The whole thing deserves to be a three-patch series, the first one
>>> being a preliminarly "let's move the final newline out of the
>>> translatable string" step, followed by "let's have a gap between
>>> output for each patch sent out". Perhaps another "even during
>>> sending a single patch, we may want extra blank lines when use of
>>> editor and other user interation is involved" patch on top.
>> Or the latter two could be done in a single patch. I'll have to
>> re-review the thing (if I were the only reviewer of the topic) so
>> doing so would delay the completion of the topic, though.
>
> Huh, I've already separated this patch into three patches, and IMHO
> they look nice and make everything less error prone. Would you agree
> with the three-patch approach, please?
My "or the latter two could be done in a single patch" was
"alternatively you can", so either way is fine as long as the result
is well structured. I know how to explain "insert a gap between
patches" well. I do not know which one is easier to explain,
between
(1) now we have "insert a gap between patches" with patch [2/3],
but when editor invocation and confirmation prompts are
involved, there are these three cases where we want to tweak
the logic to show gaps. Here in patch [3/3] I explain how each
of these three affect the logic from the previous step.
or
(2) We want to insert a gap before showing the second and
subsequent patches, unless in such and such cases. We also
want to insert a gap when we do this and that. We do all of
these in this patch [2/2].
So doing it in three-patches results in a series easier to
understand by readers, by all means, please do.
Thanks.
