patchOptimize the description of the configuration in packfile-uris doc

>> There is a description problem in the document about packfile-uris. This
>> patch describes the configuration format of `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri`
>> more accurately.
>
> Thanks for noticing this. The diff itself is correct, of course.
>
> As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
> possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> description" or something like that.
>
> Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
> seen in t5702.

> Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
>
> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
>
>>As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
>>possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
>>description" or something like that.
>
> Thanks for mention this, "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> description" is good and meets the "50 characters" requirement. So the
> title is modified. 
>
>>Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
>>seen in t5702.
>
> Because I am implementing another patch[1] about supporting the commit
> object in packfile-uri, I noticed the `configure_exclusion` function in
> t5702, which is now mentioned in the commit message.
>
> [1]https://public-inbox.org/git/20210507021140.31372-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> ---

>  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
>  at least so that we can test the client.
>  
>  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
> -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
> -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
> -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
> -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
> -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
> -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
> -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
> +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
> +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
> +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
> +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
> +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
> +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
> +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
> +single blobs.
>  
>  Client design
>  -------------

>It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>
>I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
>three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
>but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
>belong to a proposed commit log message proper.

>
> Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> > and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
> >
> > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
> >
> >>As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
> >>possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> >>description" or something like that.
> >
> > Thanks for mention this, "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> > description" is good and meets the "50 characters" requirement. So the
> > title is modified.
> >
> >>Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
> >>seen in t5702.
> >
> > Because I am implementing another patch[1] about supporting the commit
> > object in packfile-uri, I noticed the `configure_exclusion` function in
> > t5702, which is now mentioned in the commit message.
> >
> > [1]https://public-inbox.org/git/20210507021140.31372-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>
> I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
> three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
> but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
> belong to a proposed commit log message proper.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
> >  at least so that we can test the client.
> >
> >  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
> > -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
> > -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
> > -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
> > -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
> > -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
> > -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
> > -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
> > +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
> > +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
> > +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
> > +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
> > +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
> > +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
> > +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
> > +single blobs.
> >
> >  Client design
> >  -------------

>>It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>>
>>I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
>>three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
>>but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
>>belong to a proposed commit log message proper.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood.
>
> I looked at some patches in the community. If I reply to the
> reviewer’s suggestion separately and then submit a new patch, is it
> the recommended way? (Distinguish between the ‘reply‘ and the
> 'patch').

> Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
>
> Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
>  at least so that we can test the client.
>  
>  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
> -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
> -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
> -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
> -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
> -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
> -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
> -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
> +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
> +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
> +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
> +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
> +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
> +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
> +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
> +single blobs.
>  
>  Client design
>  -------------

> Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
>> and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Will queue; thanks.
>
> Jonathan, how does this look?

>> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
>> index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
>> @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
>>  at least so that we can test the client.
>>  
>>  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
>> -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
>> -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
>> -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
>> -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
>> -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
>> -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
>> -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
>> +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
>> +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
>> +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
>> +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
>> +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
>> +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
>> +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
>> +single blobs.
>>  
>>  Client design
>>  -------------

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> >> and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > Will queue; thanks.
> >
> > Jonathan, how does this look?
> 
> Ping?

>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
>> >> and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
>> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > Will queue; thanks.
>> >
>> > Jonathan, how does this look?
>> 
>> Ping?
>
> Sorry, I just got back on vacation. This looks good - it's exactly the
> same as the change I approved previously [1].

>
> Teng Long, for future reviews, the review would go faster if you
> mentioned the changes in between versions (e.g. in this case, you
> updated the commit message following my suggestions).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210506164728.336409-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/