From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044F31F466 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 02:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727792AbgBECud (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 21:50:33 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:46943 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727714AbgBECuc (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 21:50:32 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id y8so223246pll.13 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:50:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gelE++Q8PEG6mxb/NNZc+Xy5SqrqMIQl+U8bxFUtvI4=; b=FOQV2b3/QfHVLjxxnYVBjfCvlHwzB+0w3QT4QImcP0S7t7pb/CCX7AKeTI7NJZuRaO fKlslyT58BRaxxRQ9h9y0wQpP41xT6g3VrvwDL9JDdmwmBRFPQEe8iWV3SNWy++g3lVf FaYw1TYE2Da31j4z1aQlr3DTNRtkwY2M8319ZPCLpQPTDlHjdilwnut1wlcHsHs3Bhe2 QljzHLpL+vFOhTg4UpeLa6o3iCqK8IZEc0I6qejo4y+/7fYEFG7s7NQCtfyr/NkIC12J WzUGbt5KC0VnLarAONc3q7/VO+CS+wleJdNiL7jJEmFvcdPkB5fgMJUa4B468KmdQjmT ml9Q== 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=gelE++Q8PEG6mxb/NNZc+Xy5SqrqMIQl+U8bxFUtvI4=; b=j8YuSxelWyb9oSDFB8O9T7VjuQcedSFC/Q1K6FIF8X6/WNGg518yxORLoGlhzmNls3 BjFzwjnui7Pv/6tWC3i7PtTfuoe+7kYfniyxR+SLvEUcZnPWwJUd73vj8gx9IWyjEFob ocqLyViqHv46JxaFoLkn1FywdpkXDCji4DDUEoqTa2Q1aoHpYSBnUKyfa96zxNK3NVHr RtOo3+5I7bBNmfy7PBDjsnMj0eF9qXL/7jv0KwbcgwEoXaFk9cMnbORO7Ix8NnD41IGN q6qwyBry/qfDuwetuM4DLeq/SBCMfBE66fjn4d7y8EUhaB4uoMZ5vCCRu0txgHOoQJGW 7daA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXxeDODz/8mguwIwF3GyGgqCUziA4E83tla22i7eySqeQKluzIm LIWQ3svQIyya9GEYVK8YGN8OvNoAXFM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxS1JYLEJ4xKeVLLITLFxfIYbMJVKBW5Kt/RWataT1+3+A1LDHeOBlOGmGR/51A1vDp9WYG3A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f0c1:: with SMTP id fa1mr2942788pjb.129.1580871031947; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:0:231c:11cc:aa0a:6dc5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g9sm26189343pfm.150.2020.02.04.18.50.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:50:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:50:26 -0800 From: Emily Shaffer To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/15] bugreport: count loose objects Message-ID: <20200205025026.GN87163@google.com> References: <20200124033436.81097-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20200124033436.81097-13-emilyshaffer@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:48:30AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > emilyshaffer@google.com writes: > > > From: Emily Shaffer > > > > The number of unpacked objects in a user's repository may help us > > understand the root of the problem they're seeing, especially if a > > command is running unusually slowly. > > > > Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin > > Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer > > --- > > The refactor removed much of the code Dscho suggested; and yet it > > remains true that he helped me while developing this commit (although > > his suggestions didn't survive). Shall I leave the Helped-by line or > > remove it? > > You two collectively thought about viable alternatives and decided > to reject what was not wanted in the final result, and not having > that rejected code was good for the project, right? If so, I would > say it still is the help that deserves recognition. After all, > making the result better by removing things is harder than by adding > things ;-) Sounds great to me. I'd rather over-assign credit than under-assign (but I don't think this is a case of over-assigning here). > > bugreport.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > ... > > The patch text looked sensible. Thanks. - Emily