On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Taylor Blau <m...@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:04:53AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: >> Sorry for being such a stickler, but this is still too mushy. The >> first two sentences are saying effectively the same thing. One or the >> other should be dropped or they should somehow be combined in a way >> that says everything that needs to be said without repetition. > > How do you feel about? > > The `--type=<type>` option instructs 'git config' to ensure that > incoming and outgoing values are canonicalize-able under the given > <type>. If no `--type=<type>` is given, no canonicalization will be > performed. Callers may unset the existing `--type` specifier with > `--no-type`.
This sounds fine. (Maybe s/the existing/an existing/) > I think documenting that `--no-type` unsets any pre-existing `--type` > specifier is worthwhile. That said, I also think that there's a way to > combine the last two sentences, but it might be clearer as two smaller > pieces rather than one big one. Smaller, simpler, more easily digested sentences are a win. >> If necessary, iterate over updates of this paragraph here in the email >> thread until a polished version is reached rather than re-rolling the >> entire series every few minutes. > > Thanks, and will do :-). I am quite new to this and was unaware of the > situations when re-rolling is and isn't desirable. I am going to wait to > re-roll this series until it has gathered more feedback, or at least > consensus, Just as it's a burden for you to repeatedly re-roll, it's also a burden on reviewers to repeatedly re-read the series. Ideally, we'd like fewer, rather than more, re-rolls, so it's good to nail down questionable or ambiguous issues via normal email discussion before going for a re-roll, and some reviewers try to assist with deciding if a re-roll is needed by saying whether or not a review comment warrants one. Allowing time for others to review and possibly comment on a series before re-rolling is indeed a good idea. Another useful tactic is to include, in the cover letter, an interdiff between the previous and new versions, which gives reviewers a way to quickly examine the changed parts of the series without necessarily having to re-review each patch in entirety (an often time-consuming task). > after which I think it will be ready for queueing as-is. Famous last words ;-)
