Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Rewrite packfile reuse code

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 8, 2019, 07:53 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1rmv7dvWBe5=dnrh8icfsE_PWEukmuUmqB9dWJ9NQTkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1912072145290.31080@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Hi Johannes,

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:47 PM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 40 quoted lines

>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019, Christian Couder wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
> > > >>
> > > >>>> It could be a good idea if Peff could answer some of the comments made
> > > >>>> by Jonathan Tan about patch 9/9.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have put Peff as the author of all the commits.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks. I think the series looks mostly good except for the questions I
> > > >>> raised in patch 9/9, so I'll wait for Peff to respond too.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hmph, the round before this one has been in 'next' for quite a
> > > >> while, so should I eject it before waiting for Peff to respond
> > > >> before queuing this one?
> > > >
> > > > After rebasing these v3 patches on top of the base of the one in
> > > > 'next', the only difference seems to be the log message of 3/9 and
> > > > the contents of 9/9.  I guess I'll mark the topic as "on hold" for
> > > > now before doing anything, as I am officially taking a time-off most
> > > > of this week ;-)
> > >
> > > So..., that week has passed---anything new?
> >
> > Unfortunately, no.
> >
> > If you want I can send an incremental change on the content of 9/9 on
> > top of what's in next. Otherwise I can't see what I could do on this.
> >
> > Peff, could you tell us if you might have time to take a look at this soon?
>
> Chris, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not your decision to
> contribute these patches?

Please take a look at:

https://public-inbox.org/git/3E56B0FD-EBE8-4057-A93A-16EBB09FBCE0@jramsay.com.au/

and Peff's response to James Ramsay's email.

Peff wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> It's been on my todo list to upstream for a while, but I've dragged my
> feet on it because there's a lot of cleanup/polishing from the original
> patches (they were never very clean in the first place, and we've merged
> a dozen or more times with upstream since then, so the updates are
> spread across a bunch of merge commits).

and then:

> Yeah, I think we should work on getting our changes (including those
> stats) into upstream.

So actually I thought that I was helping Peff on this, though I know of course that it's also helping GitLab and everyone else. That's why I put Peff as the author of the patches.

> Are you saying that you do not understand them
> well enough to drive this patch series forward (e.g. address all reviews
> and questions) and are basically trying to force Peff to contribute them
> instead?

Yeah, I don't understand them well enough to answer Jonathan Tan's questions.

But no I am not trying to force Peff. I am trying to work with him. When he said he thought we should work on getting the change into upstream, I just thought he meant it and would be willing to help.

> Ciao,
> Johannes