From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 EFA3F1ABEB9 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722633228; cv=none; b=XRjbcpe+PGTSs7UgZOEJ29ZCTiMxzlt2hTnSuIN5CVk9JIVJ1FjZv5uH6+w89pUKPafSHuIIxu/CGwi53MQ5zAIQbUg6Jz3fl5fEUdKpDYaQO/7H1U6Z3FqOYEpezJYqTk2rekl/R+4KHkiPBe7xdYv9WrUevj4V5iMB2m/5Pec= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722633228; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tdygIN23cciKKVv0OgFCE/cHY5rH0SEGmZ528TsQ+g0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=uXdvqw64zW5/hP4q2LIStiLcYhZn+LJyE5E1US62TPO8u0vjX99NUav3gHwr1dZ4JwK7+nThmra0clyybJ5+L4dxw3AOlsAMwl0fnXXSuv2nZt1NJO21p4zfGyoyfDMSJDkS4RKPXk12sChofM5I+R7T8ERCMe8yKB7X6x17RbY= 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=ZWEgSBkV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 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="ZWEgSBkV" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E13B1C954; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:13:46 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=tdygIN23cciK KVv0OgFCE/cHY5rH0SEGmZ528TsQ+g0=; b=ZWEgSBkVMH3KBTfB3UaqFhc+9SR+ cYiO/lvEPoO/DHOGImxJBuoPuYw9KZE8n3SWFHQSijMOxr7lEvOpEIHiX7ludQxa 0aBDWFt1ucFjg7QS3kyjf1brcGChsqq7ZafE60iTk/5N205mIm20HW54hocYWKNj DdSqIXgzdDXQOyA= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768EF1C953; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:13:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C0151C952; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:13:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Ryan Hendrickson Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] http: do not ignore proxy path In-Reply-To: <30733887-33d8-4049-7dc9-8bc9d0b106da@alum.mit.edu> (Ryan Hendrickson's message of "Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:39:48 -0400 (EDT)") References: <2ba77de5-f103-c2f0-c009-71700c8a020d@alum.mit.edu> <30733887-33d8-4049-7dc9-8bc9d0b106da@alum.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 14:13:40 -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; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1892C0A2-5114-11EF-801F-9625FCCAB05B-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ryan Hendrickson writes: > At 2024-08-02 12:28-0700, Junio C Hamano sent: > >>>>> Is this blocking feedback? This strikes me as speculative >>>>> over-engineering >>>> >>>> No, it is loosening a pattern that is overly tight and as a side >>>> effect shortening the line to more readable length ;-). >>> >>> Blocking or not? >> >> If we are updating anyway, that question is irrelevant, no? This >> version may hit 'seen' but until the next version comes it will not >> advance to 'next'. > > I can't figure out what you mean by this so I am going to proceed as > if you had simply said =E2=80=98non-blocking=E2=80=99. It does not make much sense to ask if a suggestion is "blocking" or "non-blocking". If you respond with a reasonable explanation why you do not want to take a suggestion, I may (or may not) say that your reasoning makes sense. IOW, making me say "it is blocking" means you want to me to say that I won't listen to you no matter what you say. That is rarely be the case. In this case, I do not think it makes sense to insist with -Fx that the error message has the exact message. And I do not think your "strikes me as" qualifies as a "reasonable explanation".