From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 A2798158D99 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:19:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706548744; cv=none; b=lSPnL7W82OU++YaBGxInMQY6GTmTz8NH8I0koV+bqgGofBlXqvocRrj1BDnda38olOvXkKlv6mWmOeHJNG4A/8ks9LuNMc8/0d/qbGphIr8qdNL/FWx9qoD4WsFL3VTJAwVt1xOxzeE394A87eEPEEbShm2VXubwP7r28+cl2oA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706548744; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ll+Gh7BSFtsPbh1LglAvtjDhgWKPZojO+VTCgz0sHaE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=T1P4BwyuUX/9QppXWF781LIzvfuaRFUx7lPEIdMon4OfT60DEMQEscaQ/JXoLYAuhtsI9SmljrZyWHteeSfPbJpNTRcrrJFGbMiAaFSEspohi4C5bd6lTL/lOljlZ/9c9bDkPbG6YyACh9yCfh/3qMLfZt9/i32J+zMPPh0kgGo= 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=GMr4OJ7a; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="GMr4OJ7a" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB3D20947; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:19:01 -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; s=sasl; bh=Ll+Gh7BSFtsPbh1LglAvtjDhgWKPZojO+VTCgz 0sHaE=; b=GMr4OJ7aI7JLKPablUcH59CD0RNL6m7OIVGs8Ex4uPdT1ZomeTZHIi idKHtIBv4O0ehOuxlZVIAEKEOspCAbcyOVexdQxtjXm+V1DBBh7KML8zTANkICF4 Kei57RgOQDbhJjPe7uU6dcdn3kCh6Py5uG+XE/MvVCY34EAColRpc= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85E520946; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:19:01 -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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FE0720943; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:18:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: John Cai , John Cai via GitGitGadget , Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] index-pack: fsck honor checks In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:15:30 +0100") References: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:18:56 -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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7CDF776C-BECA-11EE-A94A-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: > I'm always a bit hesitant to add trailers referring to off-list reviews > to commits. It's impossible for a future reader to discover how that > trailer came to be by just using the mailing list archive, and expecting > them to use third-party services to verify them feels wrong to me. > > It's part of the reason why I'm pushing more into the direction of > on-list reviews at GitLab. It makes it a lot more obvious how such a > Reviewed-by came to be and keeps things self-contained on the mailing > list. It also grows new contributors who are becoming more familiar with > how the Git mailing list works. If such a review already happened > internally due to whatever reason then I think it ought to be fine for > that reviewer to chime in saying that they have already reviewed the > patch series and that things look good to them. Thanks. That would improve clarifying a situation like this one (eh, actually, once it is done this particular situation wouldn't need any clarification).