From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sh-setup: Write a new require_clean_work_tree function Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 00:37:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20101001053721.GB6184@burratino> References: <1285877017-8060-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1285877017-8060-2-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <7v4od7hsqt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20101001045713.GE20098@kytes> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git List , Joshua Jensen , Matthieu Moy To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 01 07:40:41 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P1YMI-0000TZ-BU for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 07:40:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751995Ab0JAFkd (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 01:40:33 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:52039 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751895Ab0JAFkb (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 01:40:31 -0400 Received: by yxp4 with SMTP id 4so1031757yxp.19 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:40:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=7touTN7yx/WKHu7aXZz4OtOEhEBpUaqZEiOBbSuepo8=; b=l9XRSlkKKEUyJbfs5BYrrY1iUkAbFEXn5zfvGmSnTNUS0pBw+Cf3vt9PhP4SIFaE3d mw7POllM/xbroacnP9dtO7E4cjsWX6wRsc0l0gT16iCAUFDsVjBu0Lbycwzc1sXOVoUy 3sC9PgoIKL67T28+uyATaCb6WbKUpVQsPTHtg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=RYtlfqeEx0AjdwEEoo6poDrA/h8dsp08tk9IXXdUJS8xyzs+iX5HdqfE+0rm48Y3y1 EmhWtF/GdBqIR1LF/SXAO1lqhHQaBf+uKXOJn5AoOdpyG2bQS6sGqk9ix+9R1rjD11CZ CcwkTVO7aIL0Yfm8nQ6LFXR1uxFsLi8P+MHsU= Received: by 10.151.1.41 with SMTP id d41mr429046ybi.215.1285911630622; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from burratino (adsl-68-255-106-176.dsl.chcgil.sbcglobal.net [68.255.106.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l19sm472603ybn.12.2010.09.30.22.40.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101001045713.GE20098@kytes> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: >> Please don't do this in-body "Cc:"; it is meaningless. > > Oh. What I intended to say was that Matthieu reviewed my previous > iteration- should I just put that information in the cover letter or > is there some other notation I should use? I can't use "Reviewed-by" > either because he only reviewed the previous iteration- not this one. Some noise about Cc and Reviewed-by tags: - I have been using Cc lines in patches to say "I consider this person something of a maintainer of the subsystem in question and would be particularly interested in his or her opinion." The idea is that if the patch does not get acked and a Cc line remains, people can tell that from the log. The benefits: 1) I remember to cc them 2) later it is easy to find who looks like a maintainer 3) the lack of ack is more obvious Checking Linux's Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I find that that is a misuse on my part (sorry). A person passing on a patch to Linus is rather supposed to _add_ a Cc line in the rare event that they want to explain that a certain person had an opportunity to comment but did not comment (so Linus can know about their indifference to the patch, I guess). Neither use is as important for git, where many people read the list so it is not as important to cc people to get proper review. - I also used to abuse Cc lines to fit in contact information for a person who helped me, until I learned to use Helped-by and similar neologisms for that. Sorry. - Again from Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I learned a while ago that Reviewed-by, unlike Acked-by, can only be offered by the reviewer and means that she is satisfied that the patch is ready for application. If you just want to credit Matthieu, I suppose it would make sense to say "Thanks to Matthieu Moy for such-and-such" somewhere.