Re: [PATCHv7 0/8] Expose submodule parallelism to the user

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2016, 17:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kaRyQXDiOQCdmBuEQdGevj7ebnmCtErVy4ymwPzLfrmtA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq37u1quyf.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> Additionally to that I needed to switch the order of arguments for the
>> parallel processing calls, too, to make it compile again.
>
> That sounds as if the previous one that was queued did not compile,
> but I didn't recall seeing such breakage.  Also comparison between
> corresponding patches did not show such a change, either.
>
> But perhaps ...
>
>> I assume I just did that work twice as the previous version
>> ought to compile, too.
>
> ... means that you didn't need such a switch after all, and the
> re-sent series didn't have it.

My local state has had the switch, and I needed to make it before sending out the latest version. I do not recall doing that to the previous version, but that version is fine, too.

Which means I may have missed some review comment (if any) or that I am forgetting things (I was on holidays for 3 weeks, barely touching an electronic device).

>
> I am just making sure that I got the right version in my tree, so
> please don't behave as if I am accusing you that you advertised that
> you did more work than you actually did and go defensive ;-)

It should not sound as if I go defensive by being accused. I just want to point out I may have missed a thing on my end, so double caution for reviewers may be warranted. It was badly worded though.

Show 6 quoted lines

>  If the
> reason I didn't see one kind of change in the series I received is
> because it didn't have to be done and the description mistakenly
> said that such a change is included, that is perfectly fine.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks, Stefan