On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote: > Fixing a problematic change with a new commit isn't the best idea if > we have the opportunity to prevent the problem in the first place, as > Phillip pointed out. Since rj/add-p-pager is still open, it's > worthwhile to amend the problematic commit. > > Of course, we've now updated the documentation [*1*] and reinforced > [*2*] the mechanisms to prevent this from happening again. > > However, I think adding a comment about the issue to the amended > commit, which I think it has been suggested at some point, seems to me > like a good addition. I do not believe that a future reading of the > change will lead to confusion for this reason. The added comment does > not document a fix, I think, but rather it is an explanation of what > we're doing in the commit. > > Furthermore, we capture in the history, IMHO, notes of how things have > happened, which is also why I intend to apply this series on > 506f457e489b2097e2d4fc5ceffd6e242502b2bd, to only amend the last two > commits. > > 1.- jc/doc-one-shot-export-with-shell-func > > 2.- es/shell-check-updates After re-reading the series today, I still believe the change in the message for [2/2] or rebasing on 506f457e48, add value to the series, but I also see that it's not a significant improvement. Besides that minor detail, IMHO, I think we have consensus on the changes. I'm not going to send a new iteration, not because I'm against changing the message, but because I think we are entering, if we aren't already, the realm of bikeshedding. Once the changes settle, I'll send a new series to address the new "|[cmd]" command. For reference, this was the first message about the 'P' command: 1d0cb55c-5f32-419a-b593-d5f0969a51fd@xxxxxxxxx. After all, I was only interested in reviewing hunks longer that one screen height ;) Thanks, all.
