bug#65924: git searches coreutils and util-linux commands in PATH

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 15:25 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> Hi Liliana,
> 
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 14:21 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > If you need me to reduce it to four letters, yes, LGTM.
> > > 
> > > Explicit is better than implicit.  I've been thinking to document
> > > this in our contributing section; e.g. a reviewed commit must
> > > have the 'LGTM' from the reviewer.  If a series is LGTM, it needs
> > > to be implicitly mentioned with 'this series LGTM'.  That may
> > > sound silly, but I think it'd simplify reviewer/submitters
> > > interactions.
> > s/implicitly/explicitly/?
> 
> Explicit, indeed.
> 
> > I don't necessarily agree, but it's not a hard disagree either. 
> > I'll try to keep that in mind at least when reviewing your patches
> > to not cause confusion.
> 
> OK.  One place where this becomes more important is when the send-
> email cc hook includes people partially to a series. A LGTM on a
> single message in this case could be misinterpreted for the whole
> series.  It's best to document the expectations and codify these
> often used signals, in my opinion.
I personally prefer to comment to all individual patches or use the
series starter for "this series LGTM", but to recap; 1 and 2 L'd GTM
(with a small caveat for 1) already and we discussed 3 in IRC, so LGTM
for the series.

Cheers