Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] propose config-based hooks (part I)

From: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
Date: Mar 1, 2021, 21:51 UTC
Message-ID: <YD1hfZqfu9bcMkra@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4ki0udu4.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:50:11AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> 
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> >
> >>> The topic branch has a lot more commits than these 17; I am
> >>> wondering if the reviewed-by applies only to the bottom 17, or as
> >>> the whole?  I recall that the upper half was expecting at least some
> >>> documentation updates.
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Just to these 17, sorry for being unclear.
> >
> > Thanks for reading them through.
> >
> > I am tempted to say we should merge these "mechanism" part down to
> > 'next', hoping that the "rewrite existing ones using the new
> > mechansim" part can follow soon.
> 
> I said this on Feb 17th, but since then I think I saw you answer
> "I'll do that" in responses to JTan's reviews in the past few days
> (e.g. <YC7o2rUQOEdiMdqh@google.com>).  Would I regret if I merge the
> topic down to 'next' today?

Bah, I'm sorry I missed this - I had a broken mutt config and wasn't seeing replies, my own fault. Argh.

I have some pretty significant changes from JTan's reviews, so I'd prefer if you would wait since it would be tricky to turn them into a patch commit now. But if you'd rather merge it and see a patch instead, that is fine with me.

 - Emily