Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [Outreachy][Patch v1] t3404: avoid losing exit status to pipes

From: shejialuo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 20:29:56 +0800

On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 08:06:10AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:

> Your observation about outdated/confusing "[foo]" annotations is
> certainly something the submitter should take into consideration for
> future submissions, but does not seem worthy of a reroll, IMHO. First,
> `git am` will strip those off automatically, so they won't become part
> of the permanent project history anyhow when/if Junio picks up the
> patch. Second, asking for a reroll for something which does not impact
> the correctness of either the patch or the commit message just makes
> busy-work for the submitter and wastes reviewer time (which is a
> limited resource on this project). Third, the point of a microproject
> is to expose the submitter to the workflow of the Git project and to
> the review process, and for reviewers to see how the submitter
> responds. That goal has already been achieved in this case, and
> rerolling for something so minor provides no additional benefit in
> that regard.

Thanks for your detailed explanation here. I don't know that "git am"
could strip those off automatically. I thought the maintainer would
delete "[foo]" manually. So, my main intention here is that I want the
submitter to make it more perfect to reduce the overhead of the
maintainer and also pay attention to this for further submissions.

And from my perspective, the reroll would not bring much overhead for
the submitter, so I expressed my words in the previous email. I know you
concerned that my words would frustrate the Usman. And I wanna say this
is not my intention here. I think Usamn has already done a great job for
this microproject to understand the workflow of the Git project. So,
actually we are on the same boat here.

Let me withdraw my previous words ("We should reroll the patch"). This
patch is good and don't need a reroll.

Thanks,
Jialuo