From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAEE3145341 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:15:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717798560; cv=none; b=YbEyPxEal8ILtEHerha3oZqKPsNtZ8x5+FxQnzMUJhWfe7jWchpzrdL/vuHaLjq4wqbXsvd6vM59sInPvNE+YenJXORsg4qfpsWA0beLLk/GvhbTyLr6Qr4bcTWKTr2HhejbTrF6J282eqIjXF+OmUeQ9hONl0QKqSllTIodXrY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717798560; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pJ+JTLF/YVjGK48yJdzdKHEWJBEhMitT/rfHTwISYM8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gkgZO5s4NAUL5RHxPej9SOrDHP7iMec7UhM8UpITz6oXkcqs5Q/SBnrPkTRbwgKjh5slrjLxh49Urp8m3KhdgTwP7Oeds4RSZH4G1iuvq+iy0jY6Yh/iBXRRFimi8BG3U1hKt0Ap6wHBy5zSMhzEx8JsWszdOdNJCRWDdSVuzMg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=mgiIS5Ua; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="mgiIS5Ua" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BA419B01; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:15:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=pJ+JTLF/YVjGK48yJdzdKHEWJBEhMitT/rfHTw ISYM8=; b=mgiIS5Uaa9p+Ao/Wj5JbecwLS4VayYBcGMrmMtkBuMgUIb+6psN9aZ zbA7+LRL9m2bnGN9TVQKMG0B7/10MdGWIT6S7bEsV1+faAlZJeB4BZd8ViuoVCmf zugiDHE0v1yfLMeHAmd3U7kx3bS5bvjVJuDxD+d5vd7u+0rHXkKlM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B257D19B00; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:15:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.204.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F53B19AFF; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:15:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Dragan Simic Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, rjusto@gmail.com, sunshine@sunshineco.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: imply that interactive.singleKey is disabled by default In-Reply-To: <61f46d925e89b6a574d84970089f3c50@manjaro.org> (Dragan Simic's message of "Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:11:30 +0200") References: <7da73f15a018d858519eefa373001ccb3eaf32e2.1716412958.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <673887a14c4f74deb4ef7771a331689b@manjaro.org> <35f5633ebf263ec743d673770eb86487@manjaro.org> <61f46d925e89b6a574d84970089f3c50@manjaro.org> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:15:56 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 837C4232-251B-11EF-B8B6-B84BEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Dragan Simic writes: > On 2024-06-01 00:21, Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2024-05-31 19:23, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Dragan Simic writes: >>>> Just checking, is there something left to be addressed for this >>>> patch, >>>> before it can be considered to be pulled into the next branch? >>> Thanks for pinging, as these small things were on the back burner >>> while preparing for updates to maintenance tracks. >>> Apparently v2 cannot be pulled into the next branch, and I forgot >>> if >>> I saw v3 already. In general, unless I explicitly say there is no >>> need to resend (sometimes with conditions), I'd expect an updated >>> iteration sent to the list. >> I see, but I'm not really sure is there need for the v3? Maybe the >> patch description could be tweaked a bit further, but I wasn't under >> impression that you asked for that to be done? Am I wrong there? > > Any chances, please, to have a look at this? I _have_ taken a look---as I said, "I saw v3 already". Unless you were asking other folks, that is, but the message was addressed to me with others CC'ed, so I am not sure what the true intention was.