From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-bundle doc: update examples Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:26:05 -0500 Message-ID: <20090204152605.GB6896@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vab95r7j4.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <87y6wnnjvl.fsf@jidanni.org> <7vbptj9cp8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090204181529.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Nanako Shiraishi X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 04 16:27:39 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LUjf8-0006jN-UC for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:27:39 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756652AbZBDP0L (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:26:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756623AbZBDP0K (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:26:10 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:51002 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753956AbZBDP0J (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:26:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 29603 invoked by uid 107); 4 Feb 2009 15:26:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:26:21 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:26:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090204181529.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 06:15:29PM +0900, Nanako Shiraishi wrote: > I didn't want your improvement suggestion to go to waste either, so > here is a proposed conclusion of this topic in a patch form, hopefully > in a good enough quality. > > After the maintainer spent a lot of time to suggest how to improve a > proposed patch for inclusion, it is rude for a contributor to walk > away without following through the review process. Such a proposed > patch is not contributing to the development process but only stealing > maintainer's and reviewers' time from the community. But others like I > can at least try to help (^_^;). Nanako, I often see you doing small patch cleanups, reposts, gentle reminders, and other work like this that really helps the community process run smoothly. I just wanted to say "thank you" so that you know that your efforts are not going unnoticed. -Peff