git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description
@ 2021-05-13  6:44 Teng Long
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Teng Long @ 2021-05-13  6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gitster; +Cc: dyroneteng, git, jonathantanmy

Junio C Hamano writes:

>Yes.  Some people seem to omit the final response to reviewer
>suggestions on the previous round and just send a revised patch, but
>it is much nicer to cleanly conclude the review cycle for the
>previous round with a separate response (it could just be "yes,
>you're right---I'll incorporate your suggestions in the next round,
>thanks") before starting a new cycle.

If I  send a new patch cycle, the "--thread"  argument seems
to be recommended. This may be the reason why it is easier
to understand when submitting a series of patches?

I may try to use "--thread", but it may make this whole
patch more confusing, sorry for that.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description
  2021-05-12 14:10     ` Long Teng
@ 2021-05-12 23:32       ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-05-12 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Long Teng; +Cc: git, Jonathan Tan

Long Teng <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:

>>It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>>
>>I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
>>three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
>>but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
>>belong to a proposed commit log message proper.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood.
>
> I looked at some patches in the community. If I reply to the
> reviewer’s suggestion separately and then submit a new patch, is it
> the recommended way? (Distinguish between the ‘reply‘ and the
> 'patch').

Yes.  Some people seem to omit the final response to reviewer
suggestions on the previous round and just send a revised patch, but
it is much nicer to cleanly conclude the review cycle for the
previous round with a separate response (it could just be "yes,
you're right---I'll incorporate your suggestions in the next round,
thanks") before starting a new cycle.

And the "patch" side should be written to be understandable even by
those who do not have access to the review history of the previous
round(s)---imagine how it appears in "git log" output to those who
did not read the discussion on this mailing list, and write for
them.

Thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description
  2021-05-11 20:50   ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2021-05-12 14:10     ` Long Teng
  2021-05-12 23:32       ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Long Teng @ 2021-05-12 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Jonathan Tan

>It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>
>I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
>three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
>but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
>belong to a proposed commit log message proper.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I looked at some patches in the community. If I reply to the
reviewer’s suggestion separately and then submit a new patch, is it
the recommended way? (Distinguish between the ‘reply‘ and the
'patch').

Another question is, if I need to continue to complete this patch,
what do I need to do? I think it is to reply to Jonathan Tan
separately, and then resubmit Patch v2. Is this way correct?

Thanks for your reply.

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 于2021年5月12日周三 上午4:50写道:

>
> Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> > and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
> >
> > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
> >
> >>As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
> >>possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> >>description" or something like that.
> >
> > Thanks for mention this, "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> > description" is good and meets the "50 characters" requirement. So the
> > title is modified.
> >
> >>Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
> >>seen in t5702.
> >
> > Because I am implementing another patch[1] about supporting the commit
> > object in packfile-uri, I noticed the `configure_exclusion` function in
> > t5702, which is now mentioned in the commit message.
> >
> > [1]https://public-inbox.org/git/20210507021140.31372-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>
> I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
> three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
> but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
> belong to a proposed commit log message proper.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
> >  at least so that we can test the client.
> >
> >  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
> > -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
> > -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
> > -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
> > -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
> > -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
> > -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
> > -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
> > +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
> > +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
> > +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
> > +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
> > +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
> > +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
> > +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
> > +single blobs.
> >
> >  Client design
> >  -------------

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description
  2021-05-11  6:45 ` [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description Teng Long
@ 2021-05-11 20:50   ` Junio C Hamano
  2021-05-12 14:10     ` Long Teng
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-05-11 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Teng Long; +Cc: git, jonathantanmy

Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:

> Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
>
> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
>
>>As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
>>possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
>>description" or something like that.
>
> Thanks for mention this, "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> description" is good and meets the "50 characters" requirement. So the
> title is modified. 
>
>>Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
>>seen in t5702.
>
> Because I am implementing another patch[1] about supporting the commit
> object in packfile-uri, I noticed the `configure_exclusion` function in
> t5702, which is now mentioned in the commit message.
>
> [1]https://public-inbox.org/git/20210507021140.31372-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> ---

It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?

I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
belong to a proposed commit log message proper.

Thanks.

>  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
>  at least so that we can test the client.
>  
>  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
> -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
> -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
> -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
> -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
> -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
> -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
> -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
> +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
> +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
> +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
> +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
> +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
> +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
> +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
> +single blobs.
>  
>  Client design
>  -------------

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description
  2021-05-06 21:39 [PATCH] Optimize the description of the configuration in packfile-uris doc Junio C Hamano
@ 2021-05-11  6:45 ` Teng Long
  2021-05-11 20:50   ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Teng Long @ 2021-05-11  6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gitster; +Cc: dyroneteng, git, jonathantanmy

Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

>As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
>possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
>description" or something like that.

Thanks for mention this, "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
description" is good and meets the "50 characters" requirement. So the
title is modified. 

>Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
>seen in t5702.

Because I am implementing another patch[1] about supporting the commit
object in packfile-uri, I noticed the `configure_exclusion` function in
t5702, which is now mentioned in the commit message.

[1]https://public-inbox.org/git/20210507021140.31372-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com

Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
--- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
+++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
@@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
 at least so that we can test the client.
 
 This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
-server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
-<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
-blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
-server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
-implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
-without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
-downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
+server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
+<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
+sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
+in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
+excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
+that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
+clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
+single blobs.
 
 Client design
 -------------
-- 
2.31.1.443.g1f2fb5c85f.dirty


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-05-13  6:45 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-05-13  6:44 [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description Teng Long
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-05-06 21:39 [PATCH] Optimize the description of the configuration in packfile-uris doc Junio C Hamano
2021-05-11  6:45 ` [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description Teng Long
2021-05-11 20:50   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-12 14:10     ` Long Teng
2021-05-12 23:32       ` Junio C Hamano

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).