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 5A83F1339A9 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:56:12 +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=1706208973; cv=none; b=QmEGryd6a9/8v4ii90lFtLGOWRWZYaVC1+XYixx129S4+NsDSOigcSNBMBnAVXdvC6WHyVY8vE6aHChMzaI9Re3rOV7KKB+BMxTiXQk08nOTv1x0L9VeRpg5Fu2r7N/0tjQA9guKIY/EoYCpUsYeWJVa3s7cvJlbWXDqIpQy2as= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706208973; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mwaccdeL3cqPrmXcsNPOW1b9HvLUfW3SqeEl9QCgPp4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=C/Iq7eJRvkBPwoAFfIeHqJl7ubYicxgQHGIyglK60H2vjbyw4rYqcOWOTJRd5EDxfL1613kN1dv8FiQcIyoPYi+Q1MWINTz2PXfl5wrudpQbMLw01S7OgCzz7tXvVwqUjiy/hBbxVitKLybzh8LCGt1EU1k8GIHc8CZbIBZrseg= 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=OUjygqFp; 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="OUjygqFp" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4891BF269; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 13:56:10 -0500 (EST) (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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=mwaccdeL3cqP rmXcsNPOW1b9HvLUfW3SqeEl9QCgPp4=; b=OUjygqFpmbTJfOfGyu62i5BSmQVT zQAyMMWDtLJ7EGl5SBqDCR4VG3J+m597OKkj+KwpLi35Oxkbjqe5Y9yKe2tp1zZ0 nuQeixxbugB8HhIHLo/1c+li2/MSzZaK+utlTnygujV9a0lJ6c8UChRFATrS0LPr wnlo5o3+cUx7uXs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D496A1BF268; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 13:56:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.200.93]) (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 3D06E1BF267; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 13:56:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: Zach FettersMoore , Zach FettersMoore via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] subtree: fix split processing with multiple subtrees present In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:52:22 +0100") References: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:56:09 -0800 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; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 675BCF9A-BBB3-11EE-991C-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Christian Couder writes: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:38=E2=80=AFPM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Christian Couder writes: >> >> > It seems that this topic has fallen into the cracks or something, >> > while the associated pch looks good to me. >> >> Yeah, it wasn't clear to me that your message you are responding to >> was your Reviewed-by:. If I recall my impression correctly from the >> time I skimmed its proposed log message the last time, it focused on >> describing a single failure case the author encountered in the real >> world and said that the patch changed the behaviour to correct that >> single case, and was not very clear if it was meant as a general >> fix. Is the patch text, including its proposed patch description, >> satisfactory to you? In other words, is the above your Reviewed-by:? > > Yes, it's satisfactory for me, and I am Ok to give my Reviewed-by:, tha= nks! Thanks. Will queue.