threads / patch / 61111

v6, 2 partsRe: [PATCH v6 2/2] patch-id: replace `atoi()` with `strtoi_with_tail()`

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] patch-id: replace `atoi()` with `strtoi_with_tail()`

## tl;dr

4 messages between Mar 13, 2024 and Mar 18, 2024. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 3people: 2as markdown or json

Mohit Marathe· Mar 13, 2024, 15:01 UTC · lore

Hi,

I am writing to inquire about the status of this patch.

As a contributor, I am curious whether the decision not to merge this patch was intentional or if it might have been overlooked. Could you kindly provide some clarity on this matter? I tried finding this on "What's cooking in Git" but couldn't find it.

If there are any specific reasons for not merging the patch, I would be grateful if you could share them. Additionally, if there are any further corrections needed please do let me know.

Thanks, Mohit

Junio C Hamano· Mar 14, 2024, 08:08 UTC · re: Mohit Marathe · lore

Mohit Marathe <mohitmarathe@proton.me> writes:

> I am writing to inquire about the status of this patch.

Thanks for pinging.

Please be kind to fellow project members by including a URL under https://lore.kernel.org/git/ to the original discussion. In general there needs to be a reason why a patch should be applied, but a lack of reason why a patch should be applied is good enough reason why a patch may not have been applied so far. I cannot offhand recall what problems the patch had or if there were additional problems in the patch that was left unaddressed.

Thanks.

Mohit Marathe· Mar 14, 2024, 10:22 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Show 9 quoted lines

> Mohit Marathe mohitmarathe@proton.me writes:
> 
> > I am writing to inquire about the status of this patch.
> 
> 
> Thanks for pinging.
> 
> Please be kind to fellow project members by including a URL under
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/ to the original discussion. In general

I thought replying in the same thread as that of patch would be enough. But now that I think about it, threads can get pretty long. My bad,I will keep in mind to include the URL of the patch next time.

Just for the record, I was talking about this patch: https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1646.v6.git.1707025718.gitgitgadget @gmail.com/

Show 7 quoted lines

> there needs to be a reason why a patch should be applied, but a lack
> of reason why a patch should be applied is good enough reason why a
> patch may not have been applied so far. I cannot offhand recall
> what problems the patch had or if there were additional problems in
> the patch that was left unaddressed.
> 
> Thanks.

This makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks.

Junio C Hamano· Mar 18, 2024, 15:27 UTC · re: Mohit Marathe · lore

Mohit Marathe <mohitmarathe@proton.me> writes:

> I thought replying in the same thread as that of patch would be enough.

Well, if you look at the headers of your message, there only is its own Message-ID and no In-Reply-To or References, which some/many MUAs go by.

> Just for the record, I was talking about this patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1646.v6.git.1707025718.gitgitgadget
> @gmail.com/

Yup, thanks.  I ended up at the same place with subject search ;-)