From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve tests for detached worktree in git-submodule Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:39:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20120730163907.GA18109@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1343664610-479-1-git-send-email-dangra@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?R3Jhw7Fh?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 30 18:39:19 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Svszz-0006zj-UO for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754177Ab2G3QjK convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:39:10 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:41485 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753439Ab2G3QjK (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:39:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 17298 invoked by uid 107); 30 Jul 2012 16:39:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:39:13 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:39:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343664610-479-1-git-send-email-dangra@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 01:10:10PM -0300, Daniel Gra=C3=B1a wrote: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve tests for detached worktree in git-submo= dule >=20 > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gra=C3=B1a The space between the subject and your S-o-b is an excellent place to explain the rationale for your commit. How are we improving them? What cases or classes of failure does this catch that the original did not? It may be because I have not been following this topic closely, but reading the patch, I am not sure what the purpose is. Please make life easier for reviewers by telling us wha= t to expect and why before we even get to the patch. -Peff