From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:07:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 p2 1/2] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs
Message-ID: <7vsj7pmck5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s08Jfu08oeABHcy=xPtn=LZfKTdbaRZuDbf7g+RiP7xAA@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Max Horn <postbox@quendi.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 28.11.2012, at 23:23, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>>> 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?

>> <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.