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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5997CC433E0 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307C022286 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728973AbgLXWdQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:33:16 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50109 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728851AbgLXWdP (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:33:15 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE46E92B87; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:32:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=qg7l1uq4RZaM9IcET/rFnU7c6UM=; b=x80snE 3o9g+I+mA9CTRtCKeQTnuoEFFT8ozjWOsHxxgPIsaha7eXuAvv9Kz8430b+cNNyE oHmym/tiwsuCl7PDxXalKeZH+DXWzb8F6BnbuHnT59oH1XZXjpA5C3dZZGymSyX7 dYb5pIs6QTW05koh6cjavPAHHCTIEGHROHqzs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=gpXZPc/O8fYLm61F0OhWOXwNXmUGoP0v Nae2sxUVSGgUD3KhEgMa661FPIii3GxJhiDcBJb0kzzKdDcexoj/8wvPNnRuTHLe h4UXfSUtnSrwO30D79S/3ma8BwHfpArksWu9q25pP9Uoyax28usIc7clWNMyyhZY IXpmfbUgmQ4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A546192B86; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:32:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28D3392B85; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 17:32:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Felipe Contreras Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, David Aguilar , Johannes Sixt , Seth House Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mergetool: add automerge configuration References: <20201223045358.100754-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20201223045358.100754-2-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <5fe352e3968f6_198be2083@natae.notmuch> <5fe3dd62e12f8_7855a2081f@natae.notmuch> <5fe3f083f27cd_7855a20885@natae.notmuch> <5fe4baed206cc_19c9208e8@natae.notmuch> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 14:32:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <5fe4baed206cc_19c9208e8@natae.notmuch> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Thu, 24 Dec 2020 09:59:41 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E9A2992E-4637-11EB-A424-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Felipe Contreras writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >> >> Yup, I already mentioned UI mistake so you do not have to repeat >> > >> > You said it was a UI mistake, not me. I am a different mind than yours. >> >> Yes, but the point is that I do not need to nor particularly want to >> hear your opinion on the behaviour of "git merge-file". > >> I know (and others reading the thread on the list also know) that the >> exit code of the command is misdesigned already. > > Unless you can read minds, you don't know that. Actually I do, because they heard from me already ;-). If this were the case where our messages crossed, perhaps, but in this case yours was a response to my message. >> Again, please realize that on list discussion is a team effort to >> come up together a better design of a shared solution. > > Which is why agreement in a team with different minds and different > viewpoints is important. It is not like opinions on all points are important. Whether the exit code from merge-file is or is not a UI mistake does NOT have any influence on what we were discussing. My opinion is that exit code from merge-file is a UI mistake, but even if you disagree with that, that would not change the conclusion we already reached that the code should ignore its exit status, like you originally wrote. I am already trying to ignore your opinions on things that do not matter in the context of this project, as you told me earlier ;-) But just like patches, messages are written only once but read by many people, so I'd always aim for reducing noise at the source. Anyway, happy holidays and pleasant new year to you and to everybody.