Re: [PATCH v2] doc: imply that interactive.singleKey is disabled by default

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Junio,

On 2024-05-31 19:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On 2024-05-22 23:34, Dragan Simic wrote:
On 2024-05-22 23:31, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

1:  3141fe9f7328 ! 1:  7da73f15a018 doc: note that
interactive.singleKey is disabled by default
    @@ Metadata
     Author: Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
      ## Commit message ##
- doc: note that interactive.singleKey is disabled by default + doc: imply that interactive.singleKey is disabled by default
         Make it clear that the interactive.singleKey
configuration option is disabled
Heh, "note that" would probably be better, as we are going to say
"Make it clear" anyway, no?  That is stronger than just to imply.
Keeping the original version of the log message probably was
sufficient.
Yeah, but I felt like it needed some adjustments, because the patch
itself was actually changed.  I hope I won't have to send the v3
because of that? :)

+	When set to true, allow the user to provide one-letter input
+	with a single key (i.e., without hitting the Enter key) in
+	interactive commands.  This is currently used by the `--patch`
+	mode of linkgit:git-add[1], linkgit:git-checkout[1],
 	linkgit:git-restore[1], linkgit:git-commit[1],
 	linkgit:git-reset[1], and linkgit:git-stash[1].

The resulting text reads well.
Nicely done.
Thanks.

Just checking, is there something left to be addressed for this patch,
before it can be considered to be pulled into the next branch?

Thanks for pinging, as these small things were on the back burner
while preparing for updates to maintenance tracks.

Apparently v2 cannot be pulled into the next branch, and I forgot if
I saw v3 already.  In general, unless I explicitly say there is no
need to resend (sometimes with conditions), I'd expect an updated
iteration sent to the list.

I see, but I'm not really sure is there need for the v3?  Maybe the
patch description could be tweaked a bit further, but I wasn't under
impression that you asked for that to be done?  Am I wrong there?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux