Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2016-06-15

Re: [PATCH v7 p2 1/2] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:55:28

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Max Horn [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 28.11.2012, at 23:23, Felipe Contreras wrote:
quoted
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.

Currently the first ref is handled properly, but not the rest:

 % git fast-export master ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar
All these refs are assumed to point to the same object, right? I think it would be better if the commit message stated that explicitly. To make up for the lost space, you could then get rid of one of the four refs, I think three are sufficient to drive the message home ;-).
Yeah, they point to the same object.
Do you want me to amend the log message of that commit to clarify
this?
quoted
<snip>
...
It's actually revs.cmdline, I typed the wrong one.
...
So I think it's good.
Wait.

I at least read two points above you said what you wrote in the
commit was not corrrect and misleading to later readers.  And then I
hear "it's good".  Which one?

Are you merely saying that it is easily fixable to become good?  If
so, what do you want to do with these not-so-good part?

If you want to ask me to amend, that is fine, but do so in a more
explicit way, not in a message at the tail of long thread that is
not even CC'ed to me.

Of course, a proper re-roll like everybody else does is just fine.

Thanks.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help