From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix notes handling in rev-list Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:51:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20120717035138.GC20945@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120325005504.GA27651@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1342463409-6919-1-git-send-email-jukka.lehtniemi@gmail.com> <7vipdn1qb7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120717031727.GA20945@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v1ukbys0n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jukka Lehtniemi , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 17 05:51:50 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SqypA-0004gE-UY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:51:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753473Ab2GQDvn (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:51:43 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:33871 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751476Ab2GQDvm (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:51:42 -0400 Received: (qmail 3453 invoked by uid 107); 17 Jul 2012 03:51:43 -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/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:51:43 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:51:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1ukbys0n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 08:40:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > ... But whatever we call it, I think it is an > > improvement. > > I didn't say it makes things worse in any way, did I? No, you did not. That was my attempt to end the paragraph on a positive and constructive note. What I meant was "I think you are wrong and it is a bugfix, but I do not care overly what we call it as long as we do it." :) Do note that my "as long as we do it" is about the direction, not the patch. There are a few issues with the patch itself, and I just posted a review. > I was reacting on the Subject: line because that will what I later > have to work from when reading shortlog, summarizing changes, etc. That is a fair point. From the release notes perspective, it probably is a feature (there is a documentation bug, but it happens to be fixed at the same time). -Peff