From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] sequencer.c: fix detection of duplicate s-o-b Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:37:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20160406163726.GG28596@1wt.eu> References: <20160312130844.GA25639@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder , Brandon Casey To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 06 18:37:40 2016 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 1anqSZ-0003f8-2B for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:37:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751264AbcDFQhd (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:37:33 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:65377 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbcDFQhc (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:37:32 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u36GbQJf028743; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:37:26 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 07:57:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > This seems to have been lost, perhaps because the top part that was > quite long didn't look like a patch submission message or something. Don't worry, we all know it's the submitter's responsibility to retransmit, I apply the same principle :-) > Git 1.7.12 is a quite ancient release and I wouldn't be surprised if > we made the behaviour change during the period leading to v2.6 on > purpose, but nothing immediately comes to mind. Christian (as the > advocate for the trailer machinery) and Brandon ("git shortlog > sequencer.c" suggests you), can you take a look? FWIW it wad changed in 1.8.3 by commit bab4d10 ("sequencer.c: teach append_signoff how to detect duplicate s-o-b"). The change made a lot of sense but it didn't assume that this practice was common. And indeed I think this practice only happens in maintenance branches where people have to make a lot of adaptations to existing patches that they're cherry-picking. We do that a lot in stable kernels to keep track of what we may need to revisit if we break something. Thanks! Willy