Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] upload-pack: treat want-ref relative to namespace

From: Kim Altintop <kim@eagain.st>
Date: Aug 15, 2021, 19:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20210815213453.GB10013@schmidt.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2108142344570.59@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Hi Johannes,

thanks for your response. This is my very first patch to git.git, and a lot of it is learning about the conventions and expectations towards contributors, as well as getting familiar with the tooling while trying to avoid silly mistakes. So please bear with me.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> > CC'ing Johannes Schindelin as suggested by git-contacts.
>
> `git-contacts` wouldn't know that there are better experts on the
> namespace matter.

I can see now that this could come across weird. I should've written:

"CC'ing Johannes Schindelin, who started to turn up in `git-contacts` output, although I couldn't quite infer why. I haven't received any feedback about the documentation change yet, and didn't have much success trying to find reviewers by inspecting the history (parts of the file where moved). I am assuming that `git-contacts` is better than me at this, and Johannes' name shows up because of touching the documentation. Johannes: feel free to ignore if this assumption is wrong."

With this said, if you have any suggestions about finding reviewers for specific parts of a patch, or who are the experts on a more cross-cutting topic, I would appreciate if you'd share them!

> My only comment is that I would find the diff to `upload-pack.c` much
> easier to parse if the `arg` variable hadn't been renamed.

Can you explain why? Just because the diff would be smaller? I can see that in a larger patch it might have been preferable to put the rename into a separate commit, but in a hunk-sized change it seemed fine. It is also that this particular naming ("refname_nons") is used in other places in upload-pack.c, so it seemed obvious that, if I introduce namespace handling where it was previously missing, the terminology (if you will) should be the same.

From you comment, it seems like the proposer of a patch should assume that the reviewers only look at the diff as sent in the email, and not any context. Junio's response suggests something else, but I guess it's fair that if someone feels like they got CC'ed by mistake, they're not going to spend too much time.

So my question from above stands: are there better ways to find the right people to CC, especially for newbies?

Thanks, Kim