From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44C01F452 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=bXiSnnWx; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237180AbjDEJQA (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:16:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46236 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236888AbjDEJP6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2023 05:15:58 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02C63449C for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 02:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com with SMTP id n7-20020a4ae1c7000000b0053b61145406so5561651oot.11 for ; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 02:15:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680686155; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uV9tKa0hWoZGyBpyoJF6cGkL4G/osPh8BtTVYh3EkOI=; b=bXiSnnWxcMFNRUQHe4UWhTHkkp5oaXPQOoMlhjTvPpeGsYoh5NoAlMcAqlWEot7pZN EtC8j3A61Mo84+ggnfApBtCC39bFsKVUc4Klzmoz++exYrt7fyZuo60mUaS7HvYD9fWU aEXyEi5PXzotlBjJxM1rPQQ8Sl7gjLRGQMSZJEfESo3dOLHhCoYwo4nlkBcfF0FDfT5g R1q5LYal3NuV5yC/VUOyxBnNe8CNOT96nwbPyWjtO/plhHp27IeFOq5+i6Gnn8Kv1hfE JM5DCjtF55nBQynQFlhyooZk4qAH1L/shbvaaeMsyPA8g1BZlvXRW05TQ0sC6fC2tisI toSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680686155; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uV9tKa0hWoZGyBpyoJF6cGkL4G/osPh8BtTVYh3EkOI=; b=1V+cTn1q/baMB2H4lsOQ6Zd2nXg6BHoWr6esABXiwcpqYED/em5cJL3hmDcsCSiRNZ kFcyCDlPgmjDYwf3wiAg7hVapZjBgVx9fu39nWmtmloL/pWoZW4h2pq3TD65tEjYgKCm scwGsoYyuJyTRQFsIzNmppuI0MElZhCkv7e9xoSxeRnkpF6UIHLUbbviypamZ8HqmTCr 7+fMKfxTfab6fHQD/gfIxEDfQOYSVJiEJkIB6BlzdVMudkahfCGIEnPhMLyrjYT+akca aLY4gUx7O1U6ThHtgucUxwoGqrYm7rZxv2Vbtac9sq8qjeGn9K1cRutYJZQEuECPFsMC 9hiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e4xHl4OpeClW/CSjmdHD3yrUXx+qlYR37iuVIftfTY13nwrfO2 TTjquXEZnIHdoflgIok0tXI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YgV5BoogfKu27rYYHByQEuZuC1SJNp8Ped80Xn8ki338kK2JxUAgfbwrThCu1GzqlnFgYlwQ== X-Received: by 2002:a4a:1187:0:b0:541:521:b527 with SMTP id 129-20020a4a1187000000b005410521b527mr2355041ooc.7.1680686155222; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 02:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.136.10.190] ([194.199.146.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i2-20020a4aab02000000b005251e3f92ecsm6343711oon.47.2023.04.05.02.15.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Apr 2023 02:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <11f9fec6-dbad-4f70-75f3-793eadd62840@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:15:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] branch: improve error log on branch not found by checking remotes refs To: Junio C Hamano Cc: ClementMabileau via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org References: Content-Language: en-US From: Clement Mabileau In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 4/4/23 18:24, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Clement Mabileau writes: > > Ah, sorry, I didn't get your response as a conditional "if you like > it, I'll work on it further", as we usually take "how deeply does > the original proposer of a change believes in it" as a strong hint > when we need to decide if it is something worth pursuing [*1*]. I > am not so enthused to drop everything else and invest 100% of my > time and attention to this change, but I am not opposed to the > change being proposed, either. We haven't seen anybody other than > us two to speak on the review discussion thread of the previous > round, so I do not know about other developers and users. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain the usual process, I must confess I'm not used to it, so the confusing discussion, sorry for that. > The usual next step by the author is > > * Update and resend the patch(es), taking care of not just > correctness of the code but also making sure that the proposed > log message reduces the need for those questions asked during the > review of the previous round [*2*]. > > * Wait to see other people who find the change favorable. > > * After that, the patch may be picked up, advance to 'next' and > then to a future release. > > but the author can abandon it at any step. After all it is author's > itch and all we can do here on the list is to give encouragement and > help in polishing it. > > Thanks. > [Footnote] > > *1* We do not take it very kindly when somebody says "I am dreaming > this and that change, I think it would be great, and if you > promise it will be included in the next version of Git, I'll > work on it", and respond with "We do not know how good your > change will be until we see it." plus "If a change is so great, > we expect you would work on it even only for yourself,its > greatness will spread by word of the mouth, many people will > yearn for it, and eventually we would come to you begging." A > change, in which even the original author does not feel it is > worth their time to invest to perfect, has much less chance to > be successful. Be sure that I'll work further on my patch with this in mind! > *2* Reviews on the previous round may have asked "why is this change > needed?" "what is the intended use case?" etc. The proposed log > message is the place to explain these. The goal is to make it > easier for future readers of "git log" to understand so that > they do not need to ask these questions (unlike reviewers who > can ask and get answers from the author of the patch, they do > not have anybody to ask because the author of the patch may not > be around forever). This is also good to know, I'm still learning for sure.