From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] rebase -i: add ack action Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:41:49 +0300 Message-ID: <20160411184535-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, bafain@gmail.com, sunshine@sunshineco.com, Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 11 18:41:59 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 1apeuT-0006CT-4X for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:41:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754363AbcDKQlx (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:41:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57143 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753837AbcDKQlw (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:41:52 -0400 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423913455A5; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (vpn1-5-155.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.155]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id u3BGfoYJ026176; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:41:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Repost, sorry about the noise. On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 05:36:45PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > So far I only see examples of adding footers. If that's all we can think > > up, why code in all this genericity? > > Because as far as I can see, the only benefitor of your patches would be > you. > > Ciao, > Johannes This seems unlikely. Just merging the patches won't benefit me directly - I have maintained them in my tree for a couple of years now with very little effort. For sure, I could benefit if they get merged and then someone improves them further - that was the point of posting them - but then I'm not the only benefitor. The workflow including getting acks for patches by email is not handled well by upstream git right now. It would surprise me if no one uses it if it's upstream, as you seem to suggest. But maybe most people moved on and just do pull requests instead. -- MST