From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, barkalow@iabervon.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtin-remote: better handling of multiple remote HEADs
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:48:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vy6w8sstp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090214185411.GA13121@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:54:11 -0500")
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> Which made me think of something else, with all of this talk about
> reviewers that has been going on. Junio is actually in a little bit of a
> special position with small changes (like style issues) to say "I'll
> apply this, but tweak these changes".
It is not that I am special.
What is special is an otherwise obviously good patch with a few trivial
mistakes that I can fix locally without worrying the fix-up may be wrong.
It is not even per author, it is per patch, and it is a rare exception.
Often, I notice these things *after* I applied and reviewed the results,
so it already is in my work area. I then judge the tradeoff between an
extra round (which as you stated needs another fresh review, patch
application and testing here) and the possibility that I may make a silly
mistake myself while attempting a fix-up (such a mistake by me will not
be seen on the list and others do not have chance to catch them).
For this reason, I try to keep these "will fix up no need for resend" to
the minimum and only to the most trivial cases.
> ... But the rest of us are stuck
> saying "I would change this one line" to the list; then either:
>
> - the original submitter re-rolls the patch, which takes their time
> and everyone else's time to look at the new patch, see that it is
> trivially changed, etc
>
> or
>
> - Junio has to read the followup comments, then go back and find the
> spot in the original patch to mark it up.
A third option is:
"I would change this and that" review comment message, followed by
a separate message "Here is how I would have done it", addressed
To: the original submitter (with in-body From: line), Cc: to the
list and me.
The original submitter can verify the latter one, and either agree to or
disagree with it. If the reroll is good, then I can just pick it up. I
think you have done that in the past yourself, and the process made my
life a lot easier.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-14 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-13 8:54 [PATCH 0/4] remote HEAD improvements take 2 Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 8:54 ` [PATCH 1/4] builtin-clone: move locate_head() to remote.c so it can be re-used Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 8:54 ` [PATCH 2/4] builtin-remote: move duplicated cleanup code its own function Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 8:54 ` [PATCH 3/4] builtin-remote: teach show to display remote HEAD Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 8:54 ` [PATCH 4/4] builtin-remote: add set-head verb Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 10:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-13 10:21 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 11:42 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] builtin-remote: add set-head subcommand Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 10:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] builtin-remote: add set-head verb Junio C Hamano
2009-02-13 10:52 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-14 0:22 ` Jeff King
2009-02-14 2:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-14 2:18 ` Jeff King
2009-02-14 2:48 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-14 2:59 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-14 3:43 ` Jeff King
2009-02-14 10:30 ` [PATCH] builtin-remote: better handling of multiple remote HEADs Jay Soffian
2009-02-14 17:54 ` Jeff King
2009-02-14 18:35 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-14 18:54 ` Jeff King
2009-02-14 19:48 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2009-02-14 20:21 ` Daniel Barkalow
2009-02-14 21:15 ` Jeff King
2009-02-15 6:08 ` Jeff King
2009-02-15 6:10 ` [PATCH 1/5] test scripts: refactor start_httpd helper Jeff King
2009-02-15 6:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] add basic http clone/fetch tests Jeff King
2009-02-15 8:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-15 6:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] refactor find_refs_by_name to accept const list Jeff King
2009-02-15 6:16 ` [PATCH 4/5] remote: refactor guess_remote_head Jeff King
2009-02-15 6:18 ` [PATCH 5/5] remote: use exact HEAD lookup if it is available Jeff King
2009-02-15 15:22 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-15 19:58 ` Jeff King
2009-02-15 20:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] transport: cleanup duplicated ref fetching code Jeff King
2009-02-15 20:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] transport: unambiguously determine local HEAD Jeff King
2009-02-15 5:27 ` [PATCH] builtin-remote: better handling of multiple remote HEADs Jeff King
2009-02-15 5:34 ` Jeff King
2009-02-15 14:13 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-15 15:12 ` Jeff King
2009-02-16 2:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-16 2:58 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-13 8:57 ` [PATCH 0/4] remote HEAD improvements take 2 Jay Soffian
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vy6w8sstp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=barkalow@iabervon.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jaysoffian@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).