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=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_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 393BC20C11 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753148AbdK0Uti (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:49:38 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:36188 "EHLO mail-io0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752945AbdK0Uth (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:49:37 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 79so30267818ioi.3 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=M59sipfM0XPf5PjJiozrT8PK7R/ov426YJqrBZD0G+Y=; b=BqxiDyNq4913kNiMj8lSi1OJsbLe68QQboqmC2H4vMJ4m/ZtkqTFtd/mgnvvi1Z2ni Ymkfq/U9gD1y5D4vhk4K+3Ksuv7CGLM9Cnsq13rFJ8GNQ3F9pY1EjomW/Vz13qtOycXQ apwEPp+kW1ksVkrZFqgM0sY4qYY/p8c0feRi7un/huupLCAQUkmCgSM2XffABDEELM+q BZu6dkIXFRo1NAZE3ikhjMjPBEPqsF+8n1misoE7peRNBJRfHFBD2H7hcYqtX7cbt2n5 EmMFYfO8rFm0D/d/5sDHbH0Oow+xF2k8HMqbFiJH5bC1N0NUanA9Hr8y6s4dLYeT3i1P jvtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=M59sipfM0XPf5PjJiozrT8PK7R/ov426YJqrBZD0G+Y=; b=fl23FB4QPJu0DboHSHuwuJg3KjY5PV2zuqc7DccIyMaBl6mm9RLU8OVLvFUwILbutL vRuFueDsDy/OJMc329nQQkg7LMn6uRDiQbqs1wAomeXq0hLi8YyLTibfdAzkZyUI1kZq 5ZPT4USKHgAVQn0M8Drmk9cwOlJC5eSVIsr2Oc1uF1UC5knbJET4yy25U5v+6FfJXrqv 6vPULmkwPHEJUpWbPOxCE2HpihqEytusXxy9pPqN3qZturNJuzOW0uvoYxEwR1OyX+nm MRgYmu2RgNVCPJf2EVZAe38H1J58E5pka3dC58uYohNeTRQowjR6JqLk5BwMH2VijH5z 9z1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5kN5PvDiZV9/+XUzaWU0/OWpmde7klDXvBnM3XFNJyDG9cqQQb nGldKiHmc2vMcj7Ipn5aVaA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaZT2HVE5pnzK1vb+RujeXMUEZRCxdS6ifmq3B7TYemeDeqPoqm6fcjRmOp9WYkkNmhNQ7efQ== X-Received: by 10.107.70.15 with SMTP id t15mr2086572ioa.24.1511815776502; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from aiede.mtv.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:4187:1d6c:d3d6:9ce6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k9sm7833713ith.25.2017.11.27.12.49.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:09 -0800 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jeff King , Nathan Neulinger , Santiago Torres , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: git status always modifies index? Message-ID: <20171127204909.GA27469@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <20171122202720.GD11671@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20171122211729.GA2854@sigill> <20171122215635.GE11671@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20171122220627.GE2854@sigill> <20171126192508.GB1501@sigill> <20171127052443.GB5946@sigill> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Jeff King wrote: >> [...] IMHO it argues for GfW trying to land patches upstream first, and >> then having them trickle in as you merge upstream releases. > > You know that I tried that, and you know why I do not do that anymore: it > simply takes too long, and the review on the list focuses on things I > cannot focus on as much, I need to make sure that the patches *work* > first, whereas the patch review on the Git mailing list tends to ensure > that they have the proper form first. > > I upstream patches when I have time. You have been developing in the open, so no complaints from me, just a second point of reference: For Google's internal use we sometimes have needed a patch faster than upstream can review it. Our approach in those cases has been to send a patch to the mailing list and then apply it internally immediately. If upstream is stalled for months on review, so be it --- we already have the patch. But this tends to help ensure that we are moving in the same direction. That said, I don't think that was the main issue with --no-optional-locks. I'll comment more on that in another subthread. Thanks, Jonathan