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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,STOX_REPLY_TYPE,T_DKIM_INVALID, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 4D739202F2 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751741AbdKTR2j (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:28:39 -0500 Received: from e1i183.smtp2go.com ([103.36.108.183]:35553 "EHLO e1i183.smtp2go.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751646AbdKTR2i (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:28:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smtpservice.net; s=m1fbw0.a1-4.dyn; x=1511199818; h=Feedback-ID: X-Smtpcorp-Track:Date:Subject:To:From:Reply-To:Message-ID:Sender: List-Unsubscribe; bh=nNsaxO9ZN/SsmCfNO51HmU3EbMxKhpbETqmWKPG3x28=; b=eWEcYUql AWVB83TlfwgAWH4g6qp67gC2Gjrh8J+Bell4zQdkIpPLSefx5ivOx883DGh4b5idc8rXFRo5hSsCW jTLZYSE8fnsuDtMnrLmDnqs5l8D9FdXRdRtAjOUERCfYy+uN0VQN+gDq7nL7S/Cmn8KZ69yZfRc31 tdRelWhPN/czxaKDbHAWPtqk0YU8hNu1AKEHGSkZOOcirS0dzEZ/gzB+2vcJLCpSNF+xYXuseb1EF j6FUGVY3tx9gyneJ+KWHrv4XhuAFPFFFGTjcJhAg3N3bLOW6wC/L5q1leQj4p+gBEOZGMxjdXZd+a DYIlfk3KF2/OqcHHeIYa1ljtsQ==; Message-ID: <205BDB5638F64690AF6BE91360CE155E@PhilipOakley> Reply-To: "Philip Oakley" From: "Philip Oakley" To: "Junio C Hamano" Cc: "Stefan Beller" , "git" , "Kevin Daudt" , "Jacob Keller" , "Johannes Schindelin" References: <20171028004419.10139-1-sbeller@google.com><20171031003351.22341-1-sbeller@google.com><20171031003351.22341-7-sbeller@google.com><54073F7B0C9E49C4BA55CA97A605A724@PhilipOakley> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] builtin/describe.c: describe a blob Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:22:40 -0000 Organization: OPDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Smtpcorp-Track: 1-GpMw9EFLrbCQ.Ey7egyzBI Feedback-ID: 66524m:66524aMf6O2Y:66524sajhSw-HGc:SMTPCORP X-Report-Abuse: Please forward a copy of this message, including all headers, to Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org From: "Junio C Hamano" : Friday, November 10, 2017 1:24 AM [catch up] > "Philip Oakley" writes: > >> From: "Stefan Beller" >>> Rereading this discussion, there is currently no urgent thing to >>> address? >> >> True. >> >>> Then the state as announced by the last cooking email, to just cook >>> it, seems >>> about right and we'll wait for further feedback. > > A shiny new toy that is not a fix for a grave bug is rarely urgent, > so with that criterion, we'd end up with hundreds of topics not in > 'next' but in 'pu' waiting for the original contributor to get out > of his or her procrastination, which certainly is not what I want to > see, as I'd have to throw them into the Stalled bin and then > eventually discard them, while having to worry about possible > mismerges with remaining good topics caused by these topics > appearing and disappearing from 'pu'. > > I'd rather see any topic that consumed reviewers' time to be > polished enough to get into 'next' while we all recall the issues > raised during previous reviews. I consider the process to further > incrementally polish it after that happens a true "cooking". > > For this topic, aside from "known issues" that we decided to punt > for now, my impression was that the code is in good enough shape, > and we need a bit of documentation polishes before I can mark it > as "Will merge to 'next'". > >> Possibly only checking the documenation aspects, so folks don't fall >> into the same trap as me.. ;-) > > Yup, so let's resolve that documentation thing while we remember > that the topic has that issue, and what part of the documentation > we find needs improvement. > > I am not sure what "trap: you fell into, though. Are you saying > that giving > > git describe [