From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git clone http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/xboard.git segfaults Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:53:07 -0700 Message-ID: <7v8wh35tl8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090817135651.GA4570@harikalardiyari> <20090826202053.6e6442a6.rctay89@gmail.com> <20090826131235.GF16486@harikalardiyari> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Ali Polatel , git@vger.kernel.org To: Tay Ray Chuan X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 29 02:57:04 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MhCFb-0000U5-Oa for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:57:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751264AbZH2AxT (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:53:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751232AbZH2AxS (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:53:18 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:54463 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751183AbZH2AxS (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:53:18 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC851C92B; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:53:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ijwZM4PJqgtYj21YuBB8S7dCfyA=; b=okz9Ag CwBT2lmB+KE952idi7xt1pZF0HnEHeqHac69mYHeHTNwXr73FwfBovyQJYVwTZyF rtNswfO5rmv6UHhOq1t/BC5IW1sTwcrkrdQyVaBlqPJUL1W2x/HdMs+SRxKzqSPj fSi1wwf4TIU1RuismCebMGkCtafDv7xlakMpA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=bpyb+q+MHYxw2UBRBNIAnahItJLyNTUg 54BdCEjBm/MXJ0mihE0mpOcGAE/stBrY//kVmN/bO6pPrvn1CwTYcuIZoErxV1ke jcxdMmPSQyl6L36IOCqBTjQyXUenutZUq+7nCji+uH+xElkeWVInrZG2vK8cTud+ zuZvNPdLp5I= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0391B1C927; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:53:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06DB51C924; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:53:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Tay Ray Chuan's message of "Sat\, 29 Aug 2009 08\:07\:56 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 54D18482-9436-11DE-AEF0-CA0F1FFB4A78-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Tay Ray Chuan writes: > 2009/8/26 Ali Polatel : >> It works, I don't get any segfaults after applying this patch. > > Junio, I hope you don't mind me asking but why hasn't this patch been > accepted? It addresses a pretty severe problem, and the sooner users > have it the better. The procedure ideally goes like this: (0) original bug report is sent; Ali did this with: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:56:52 +0300 Message-ID: <20090817135651.GA4570@harikalardiyari> (1) a helpful contributor (or somebody ashamed of having introduced the bug ;-)) sends a potential fix as an RFT to the reporter, with Cc: to list. You did this with: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:20:53 +0800 Message-ID: <20090826202053.6e6442a6.rctay89@gmail.com> This message was clear that it was a request-for-test of a potential fix, not a "I know this is the correct fix to the problem; the maintainer, please apply". It wasn't even Cc:'ed to me, and not CC'ing me is the right thing to do for this kind of request-for-test patches. (2) success/failure report is given. Ali did this with: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:12:35 +0300 Message-ID: <20090826131235.GF16486@harikalardiyari> to report a success. (3) Upon seeing (2), the sender of (1) submits the final patch for inclusion, with To: me and CC: list. The sender makes sure that it is easy for me and others who sees (3) first without necessarily having followed the earlier discussions to find the previous messages (i.e. 0, 1, 2). In this case, sending a follow-up to (2) is sufficient, just like you did in the message I am responding to, because these three steps were neatly threaded already. If you knew the flow I am describing here, you would have sent "the final patch for inclusion" instead of the message I am replying to. The final patch for inclusion would have consisted of: * The usual "applicable patch": a proper subject, the log message, your Signed-off-by:, and Tested-by: to credit Ali; * Optionally, after the three-dash line before the diffstat, any out-of-band communication, e.g. "Junio, please apply to 'maint'; this is a fix for a grave bug, and the problem goes all the way down to version 1.6.1." * And the diffstat and the diff. My request for this procedure is not red tape. While an issue (such as this http one) is resolved that is in an area (e.g. http) people other than me (i.e. you) are much more familiar with, I do not have to keep track of the discussion while more capable hands are on top of it. Having (3) as the concluding step will - give me a way to easily verify, if I wanted to, the claim that this is the right solution, by referring to the previous dialog; and - give you a way to make sure that what is recorded is the correct final solution (this is especially important if steps 1 and 2 have to be repeated before reaching the final solution), and that the necessary background information (e.g. credits to the original reporter) are given in your own words, instead of having _me_ come up with one with less-than-perfect understanding of the issues I would gain after skimming the archive for the previous discussion. Nobody can expect me to keep track of everything; the final "Here is the good one" would help the process flow smoothly and reduce the chance of mistakes. Thanks.