From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] transport-helper: update remote helper namespace Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:00:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20130414190050.GA4599@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1365638832-9000-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1365638832-9000-3-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20130411043346.GE14551@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130411050509.GC27795@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8v4l7ils.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vobdh54uh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Felipe Contreras , git@vger.kernel.org, Sverre Rabbelier To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 14 21:01:00 2013 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 1URSAd-00068k-Td for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:01:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753328Ab3DNTA4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:00:56 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:45513 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753106Ab3DNTAz (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:00:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 15814 invoked by uid 107); 14 Apr 2013 19:02:49 -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; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:02:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:00:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vobdh54uh.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 Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:45:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Just rerolling with what _you_ think is an appropriate level of > explanation (either or both in log and in-code) and see what happens > would probably be the best way to proceed, I think, at this > point. Either you hear "It still is wrong and too sketchy", "Yeah, > thinking about it again, this is sufficient" from others. Or a > silent, which I am inclined to take as much closer to the latter > after all the discussion. FWIW, the last email I wrote on this patch said: So I can buy the argument that bumping it forward ourselves will not matter for any well-implemented helper. and I was the only reviewer, so I think the code is probably OK. I also said: That is the sort of thing that might be helpful to include in the commit message[...] Felipe of course did not agree, but I have no interest in trying to persuade him on that front, as it seems to just waste everyone's time. -Peff