From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout --track: make up a sensible branch name if '-b' was omitted Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:54:08 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbpzzxu0f.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vtzdu6nb7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vvdya55ur.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vsktd51wg.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 11 20:55:20 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KScY3-0007Bj-9S for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:55:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753312AbYHKSyQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:54:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753095AbYHKSyQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:54:16 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:39287 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751762AbYHKSyP (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:54:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8028555C01; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2A5D55BFD; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:54:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:01:40 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E47EBA6A-67D6-11DD-BC15-3113EBD4C077-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Don't get me wrong. I do not need that patch in git.git desperately. > But if it is rejected, I want it to be rejected for reasons I understand. You are the second person in the past few days to talk about rejection after my comments. I'll try to do better in the future, but if it was not clear, I thought the original is good enough for inclusion as-is. My comments were about potential improvements on top of what was presented, and I say "potential" not in the sense that yours is inferior than the ideal because it lacks such improvements, but in the sense that the suggested line of thought might not be even an improvement (iow, I do not mean "the code your patch brings is has potential to improve and not good enough as it stands", but "I think we might also want to do these on top of it, but I may well have overlooked downsides in my suggestion hence I am bringing it up for discussion").