From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] transport-helper: update remote helper namespace Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:45:10 -0700 Message-ID: <7vobdh54uh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Sverre Rabbelier To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 14 20:45:26 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 1URRvV-00044J-JN for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:45:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753358Ab3DNSpP (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:45:15 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:49707 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752311Ab3DNSpO (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:45:14 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ADE16A4F; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:45:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Te9iEBUKJz1/kZ+FGe0SQudOBoM=; b=pDktnr a/ttOsK916Xiei/+ylIaEJzTZA2W/LyCxIvMBIY4wGuH31qJ3TKVUBzJG1uFWADR Bkn398q38vMAoK+EOfL05OmFR0+lO2qtcmyqQOVoqmr3dqrsiExm3YSk/7pR8ozj Fa2UiOi0qO4mUKLWsp4X/mBicOFIqW5ymBFsQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NvudzAs+E6YWIMDvb7KLAVi40VtbYnU0 SidFBvlgEiRf0HuyeL9Kn3bYzDITp682CD6WBVNSd5QKqIfq1++5TFivO1VGtGj1 4Ka/EM1YDBiG3AIJ4MdsKdQqp+X3jhM05IIsSov8dLg+Qf6cilJd9sbRhN0jXVuV ivPupFCpGgM= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AD316A4E; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [24.4.35.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A1EF16A4D; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:45:12 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Felipe Contreras's message of "Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:42:47 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 70A6B562-A533-11E2-8795-8341C8FBB9E7-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Felipe Contreras writes: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> Why wasn't this patch merged to 'pu'? To my knowledge nobody raised >>> any real concerns. >> >> There are many reasons not to queue _everything_ ever posted to the >> list on 'pu', and they are almost always not a deliberate rejection. >> >> The maintainer may have thought he is not the best person to judge >> changes to the area the patch touches, and may be expecting further >> comments from others, but haven't said "Comments?" and waiting for >> them to say something without being asked. Or the maintainer may >> have judged that it is likely to result in wasted work if he queues >> that version of the patch, fixing trivial nits himself, only to see >> a reroll arrive before the day's integration cycle finishes (which >> makes him run the cycle again). Or the maintainer may have been busy >> tending to other topics. Or the maintainer may have pushed the patch >> down the queue for any of the above reasons to deal with it later, >> and after having tended to others' topics, may have forgotten about >> that patch. > > The world is full of possibilities, but most of them are irrelevant, > specially since 'the maintainer' is right here and can mention the > reason himself. Is there anything wrong in asking? An earlier draft of my message starte with "Do you have to be combative to ask a simple 'did you forget this?' question?", but later I removed it. That was what made it irrelevant ;-) 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.