Re: [PATCH 1/2] ref-filter: remove unused ref_format member

>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 17:25, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> > > Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> use_rest was added in b9dee075eb (ref-filter: add %(rest) atom,
> > >> 2021-07-26) but was never used. As far as I can tell it was used in a
> > >> later patch that was submitted to the mailing list but never applied.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> Would be nice to have a link to the email thread here, but I don't know
> > >> how.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is a link to the patch that led to that commit you cited:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/207cc5129649e767036d8467ea7c884c3f664cc7.1627270010.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
> > >
> > > It indeed is cumbersome to add, as the Message-Ids for patches from
> > > GitGitGadget tend to be ultra long.
> > >
> > > But b9dee075eb was the last one in the 5-patch series; I do
> > > not see any "later patch there in the thread.
> >
> > I think there was a follow-up RFC series that was written to use the
> > value of the member, cf.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/9c5fddf6885875ccd3ce3f047bb938c77d9bbca2.1628842990.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
> >
> > but it seems there was no review on the series.
>
> The follow-up series you link to seems to be a superset of the first series,
> which is what confused me. This is why I thought perhaps a subset of the latter
> series was accepted. But I see now that the dates match that of the first
> series, and you even applied it very soon after. Strange choice to include the
> first five patches in the follow-up series, then...
>
> Looked through the git.git log and see that it's not uncommon to reference
> patches from lore.kernel.org, so I can do the same. Perhaps in the "footnote
> style" to make it easier to digest. That is, if we want to apply this in the
> first place... It is a very minor cleanup of something that does no harm. On
> the other hand this particlar line of development seems abandoned.
>