Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
This script find people that might be interested in a patch, by going
back through the history for each single hunk modified, and finding
people that reviewed, acknowledge, signed, or authored the code the
patch is modifying.
It does this by running 'git blame' incrementally on each hunk, and then
parsing the commit message. After gathering all the relevant people, it
groups them to show what exactly was their role when the participated in
the development of the relevant commit, and on how many relevant commits
they participated. They are only displayed if they pass a minimum
threshold of participation.
Is this patch still not understandable?
Among the people who review patches here and give usable feedback,
earlier this week Peff said he is away from his mailbox for the rest
of the week, and I am not reviewing any new topics that are not in
'next', being busy in preparation for -rc0, so I wouldn't be able to
answer that question.
I do not know about the others, but it is understandable from time
to time there is a period a series is not being reviewed by anybody.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
This script find people that might be interested in a patch, by going
back through the history for each single hunk modified, and finding
people that reviewed, acknowledge, signed, or authored the code the
patch is modifying.
It does this by running 'git blame' incrementally on each hunk, and then
parsing the commit message. After gathering all the relevant people, it
groups them to show what exactly was their role when the participated in
the development of the relevant commit, and on how many relevant commits
they participated. They are only displayed if they pass a minimum
threshold of participation.
Is this patch still not understandable?
Among the people who review patches here and give usable feedback,
earlier this week Peff said he is away from his mailbox for the rest
of the week, and I am not reviewing any new topics that are not in
'next', being busy in preparation for -rc0, so I wouldn't be able to
answer that question.
I do not know about the others, but it is understandable from time
to time there is a period a series is not being reviewed by anybody.
That's fine, I was mostly asking Ramkumar who earlier argued earlier
versions of this patch were not understandable.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
Felipe Contreras wrote:
That's fine, I was mostly asking Ramkumar who earlier argued earlier
versions of this patch were not understandable.
Sorry, still catching up with list emails. At a glance, part 1 looks
much better. Will read through more carefully soon.
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
[off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
quoted
That's fine, I was mostly asking Ramkumar who earlier argued earlier
versions of this patch were not understandable.
Sorry, still catching up with list emails. At a glance, part 1 looks
much better. Will read through more carefully soon.
Gentle reminder.
--
Felipe Contreras