From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478651F40E for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757777AbcHCQ7J (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:59:09 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62408 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757340AbcHCQ7H (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:59:07 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AF92FE37; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:59:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=tjqcSkWAHJD+6OddDyK5VL4Bo88=; b=KXEg4B zBVWMjYHAk0ywct8l9RuDuvGWu1Sl1UYakxTqGi/WQF/tuXIp3tOTb2z6DoeLLbo 4AyPWyNXJuF1uL/M6LINpREerGmMrE+QjWPhLaiZy+tlG7M3Z7fcoL755cdandts 3EFvKsDj0YkQf7x9UD1+E/NPySQhGXhXFEkGA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=W7H4BYIOPziMhkJhY+ybk/+kaX2/zJ04 xZ3HM6dcomfY8uZbxpXNd5dJsT5v8/IJhGboKSOomwa6y+IqYQDbLrfZJhvp8voS 5sYB/jSSSSfekXd5e3wtUQqesHyR2HQeprm9TJaE+rhORisKYbFQ+3zSSwsriq2q Nx2dEzY47Uk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0947D2FE36; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F2C02FE34; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:59:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jeff Hostetler , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] status: V2 porcelain status References: <1470147137-17498-1-git-send-email-git@jeffhostetler.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:59:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:10:52 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 96276258-599B-11E6-8973-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Johannes Schindelin >> 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.