Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] status: V2 porcelain status

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 3, 2016, 16:59 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq7fbxaiw8.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608031808130.107993@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Johannes Schindelin
>> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Any word when it will be included in `pu`, at least?
>> 
>> I've been waiting to see that the amount and quality of
>> comments from others indicate that the series passed
>> the phase that goes through frequent rerolls. Having a
>> serious review in the thread that demonstrates and
>> concludes that it is well designed, well implemented,
>> and ready to go would help, of course.
>
> Oh, I thought I had stated clearly already that what with Jeff being my
> colleague and working on a feature I have a lot of interest in, I had
> reviewed this patch series even before it was submitted to the Git mailing
> list.

What I meant by a "serious review" is a bit more than "I reviewed without involving the list, and you know me well enough, trust me".

Even if a reviewer does not see any more need to change the patch, perhaps because it is perfect after internal reviews, a reviewer can still point out positive things, e.g. what is done well compared to other possible approaches and in what way the presented patch is better than possible alternatives. See my response to your import-tars update for an example.

Thanks.