From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F57C433F5 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D4460187 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244120AbhKIUEz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:04:55 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48204 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242871AbhKIUEv (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:04:51 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1693C061764 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 12:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id b17so282776qvl.9 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 12:02:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H9ZIiuRCh9QEYDqiuQ0LF254HYw+laPyZVcFTHWl1fc=; b=FzQlA6MB3s1jfpk9472RR0tfCOFvuU4ypXw+ZAl6fngte2Pb0dL8IuaL1+WTEygHZN T7dLNedxvjpaX/LplQ0TGYKE+9cVa17AhGIsk8n/YpLVOeAsKRLF07yVlHRKkqly4EwM IVbT5EmwHL0I8All+QARCc+KzWXdA4vkKl3nq+boP225n1p6mmtEFFgunJUBjo+e7oQH YwyGTrXrEsKbuKkgRrx3m3qYdBRgtA8gN2+wuNyiv/wrfy5/sJrwUsbDpcvj20g2aIzq 6wtHHIJH45CK/lNHkk6x6WJ8pYIl0+YNjhsolGmHGMgkoFxr6uZB37ARAmGUwUAiB8r9 Fwdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H9ZIiuRCh9QEYDqiuQ0LF254HYw+laPyZVcFTHWl1fc=; b=Pt3KGPCrFhLXxISqSpzz7k6zoDMRZkoJacyoQeuRBX2P2yBg9NgysutPmx1pDjWb7H EEILw3GTl5VAM9YdKWjJz/JhZ5uq5CCfcUNiGBN50CLPG+6PFWtX/sNjoH8T1MN4WZ8L s7ydUH8hoHvoZ5OCx5J7dz8Ezr34X8Uii9F7bT56/9sGjKDwBETvFgIjXAYlllIRtVFb UY/3fERS1OLuyvxmZG+71ZKsrURpRGwUfJ/exC1b1Dg1oKB4DXz+w0NPzuVGEFSPUAzZ 61kGwvRl+C+B1LV7U+5JrTVz73cKGlaM7FsA5hQNlxuWw590NJgo3xD8YHO5drDxJ2rH dzLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DesVMfAx7+YKWpxxFDh4RHpw1RRvsQZA6dgzgyZn4SW6cVe0O g2ZTIMFBgZppAMNrYDtYLqezG/vdXDglxJoc X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxrEW1E5VbGJS+yHe6usUVIC3bt7wPUVkPocSeCs51SoOQTxNqOM+N4vHkRCYpYJ2hbnC88GQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1c86:: with SMTP id ib6mr9833987qvb.26.1636488124164; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 12:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from samxps.umontreal.ca (x-132-204-243-123.xtpr.umontreal.ca. [132.204.243.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l15sm111211qtx.77.2021.11.09.12.02.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 12:02:03 -0800 (PST) From: Samuel Yvon To: gitster@pobox.com Cc: avarab@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, gitgitgadget@gmail.com, samuelyvon9@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtin-commit: re-read file index before launching editor Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:01:23 -0500 Message-Id: <20211109200123.27763-1-samuelyvon9@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > You seem to be quoting the thread over and over, but what you are > quoting is somewhat different from the concluding part of what I > said, which was: >> If I have to guess, I think the reason is because pre-commit >> automation is expected to be some sort of mechanical change and >> not part of the actual work that the end-user produced, it would >> become easier to perform the "final review" of "what have I done >> so far---does everything make sense?" if such "extra" changes >> are excluded. > So, in short, it is not "undefined", but rather it seems to be a > designed behaviour that we are seeing. Apologies if you feel I misquoted you. I am confused by the comment in the original code w.r.t the location of the cache reset, which (from my understanding) is contradictory with the quoted conversation and so I focused on those parts. Junio C Hamano writes: > I do not personally mind if we change the philosophy but because it > has been a longstanding designed behaviour, it may need a careful > transition plan. Out of curiosity, what would that involve?