From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9861F991 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751339AbdGaUKu (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:10:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:58383 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751113AbdGaUKt (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:10:49 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B19A4950; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:10:41 -0400 (EDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=uO5J6AX6GOQP Lw5zd1SUyrM2noQ=; b=ExlIJdiJgZ6BZx+XKZN11b8F5yxoaKbWN4+6hB/Yi0jm uP8LTuVv5bdJCkgHGN9b2IYOCv8TuTKuYNtWUdELktbjPsVzyA5fSS4Q2kKBkVfi JidvH2uOwdow9KvCuZiXNSCz9h8Au7FEGhSiG/9rkQBtkiZ5JOiVdM/Tt/X42XE= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WTg91t BcAHJ3/6uzu+DFMgTwEf+hyfTo+ebViRgyU5BQ92j0jdtM2h83I93YYT5mBkQ5oc l8qZSXiTdNTUo6qyKfe/hq2KAhaGYeNQt2eCogLKgSIABPC/1nI33xCgD5SYlj4f KiFDq0scoxMQYjzCjluABZXiIjEer0sz+74jc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18B7A494F; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36706A494D; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:10:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= , Git Mailing List , Brandon Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] tag: only respect `pager.tag` in list-mode References: <20170731034632.r5m3ncgb5scqvltb@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170731174509.w5hwujpsa4dt3jxv@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:10:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170731174509.w5hwujpsa4dt3jxv@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:45:09 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 53A9D27C-762C-11E7-9A76-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Martin =C3=85gren wrote: > >> On 31 July 2017 at 05:46, Jeff King wrote: >> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 08:17:42PM +0200, Martin =C3=85gren wrote: >> > >> >> On 21 July 2017 at 00:27, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> > I tend to agree with you that 1-3/10 may be better off being a >> >> > single patch (or 3/10 dropped, as Brandon is working on losing it >> >> > nearby). I would have expected 7-8/10 to be a single patch, as b= y >> >> > the time a reader reaches 07/10, because of the groundwork laid b= y >> >> > 04-06/10, it is obvious that the general direction is to allow th= e >> >> > caller, i.e. cmd_tag(), to make a call to setup_auto_pager() only= in >> >> > some but not all circumstances, and 07/10 being faithful to the >> >> > original behaviour (only to be updated in 08/10) is somewhat coun= ter >> >> > intuitive. It is not wrong per-se; it was just unexpected. >> >> >> >> Thanks for your comments. I will be away for a few days, but once I >> >> get back, I'll try to produce a v3 based on this and any further >> >> feedback. >> > >> > Overall it looks good to me. I left a few minor comments. >> > >> > I actually like the split. I found it pretty easy to follow (though >> > squashing as Junio suggested would be fine with me, too). >>=20 >> I assume that by "the split" you mean patches 7-8, not 1-3. Anyway, >> I'll squash since you're fine with it and Junio prefers it. > > I actually meant both, but as I said, I'm OK with it either way. I am OK with it either way, too ;-)