Re: [PATCH v3] object-name: explain why <rev>~N fails in a shallow clone

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> We unfortunately haven't seen many folks interested in this change.
>>> Is anybody interested in reviewing the patch to give it a push?
>>>
>>> Unless we see some volunteers to give it a review in a few weeks, I
>>> will discard the topic out of my tree, as 'seen' has been crowded
>>> with topics that have been collecting dust without getting many
>>> reviews.
>>
>> Is it possible that maybe the review process needs to change if too
>> many things are getting stuck? Rather than discarding acceptable work.
>
> If it were acceptable, it would have long been in 'next' and
> 'master', though.  One of the important criteria for being
> acceptable is whether others find it a reasonable change to make to
> the system, and I do not know of a way to show that other than by
> positive reviews.
>
> And that is why I pinged the thread again.

And after a few days, nobody in this thread is supportive of this
topic.  It is very unfortunate that the discussion thread that
starts at https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqtslzlhbm.fsf@gitster.g/,
which was meant to invite people who are supportive of this change
to talk about its merits, has been cluttered with messages that are
only about the review process, which I was hoping would happen
elsewhere [*].


[Reference]

 * https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq1p93ofjx.fsf@gitster.g/