From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:00:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] transport-helper: update remote helper namespace
Message-ID: <20130414190050.GA4599@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vobdh54uh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:45:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Just rerolling with what _you_ think is an appropriate level of
> explanation (either or both in log and in-code) and see what happens
> would probably be the best way to proceed, I think, at this
> point. Either you hear "It still is wrong and too sketchy", "Yeah,
> thinking about it again, this is sufficient" from others.  Or a
> silent, which I am inclined to take as much closer to the latter
> after all the discussion.

FWIW, the last email I wrote on this patch said:

  So I can buy the argument that bumping it forward ourselves will not
  matter for any well-implemented helper.

and I was the only reviewer, so I think the code is probably OK. I also
said:

  That is the sort of thing that might be helpful to include in the
  commit message[...]

Felipe of course did not agree, but I have no interest in trying to
persuade him on that front, as it seems to just waste everyone's time.

-Peff