Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Document the HTTP transport protocol
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2010, 17:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vochwijaz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <v2wd411cc4a1004060653nd8d8e924t92183c55543e8294@mail.gmail.com>
Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com> writes:
> I understand, it wasn't meant as a criticism, I was just curious why > this file was never included. That the series was marked as RFC makes > sense. Could I request that this one patch be included? Or if Shawn > has a more recent one?
I also understand and I didn't mean to sound as if I took offense. I very much appreciate reminders like yours of old discussions and patches that were basically good but did not reach conclusion at the end to avoid wasted effort.
A pointer is good, but if you are reviving an old patch, it would be much easier if you did a resend/forward for people to comment in-line, by the way.