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-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FD11F4B4 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232952AbhBALKL (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:10:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42238 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232946AbhBALKB (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:10:01 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B05DC061574 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 03:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id q23so2371789vsg.4 for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 03:09:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=os5QiYPjEFwxPU5ai4yLt26TzRqfRh1MCuJVByVK3Bc=; b=HDCwbTocJ3HLqlSrbRXa5nORdK+J72Vygzx2JU8Mz7A6KAogyrrGDxHXE25xTY0wFc vtU5WYOaOILC+jK6ulEHNWyrobOeEz+b4XPmsB+ALpcR7iTv26Vfae2OkIhDduY8qc0P afqvqx3+ccaDFQniBaQTW/aIrOHNJTN1aSu40l5OCpZtPU9muJzOz5AValirfOnC+KPO 92xY6LWMpl5i5ZDoTsuKgJE6ScobTVTqe1FV99D7Zo2t3fh88mKx94SBW7UxxyETCoxF HpxW4G+/KFLtodsUf71XZyUAbApFYJSYBJpJ50wSXnaYMK9HJKtfHbyBmcZSAh/2jfwK 5IKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=os5QiYPjEFwxPU5ai4yLt26TzRqfRh1MCuJVByVK3Bc=; b=mhOIw41MbY4fj46xBUF56rfI4IKDuGFXy0I7JMbnu5J1VPj/eSn7YD81VF+V6Mm4Ue mrmqy581BAXRPd/rsMnrEX0CuJ9vDOTWechCFCwTTXV6/J3sIATZwjW8ADtzQVBznVkL jH+IH2O9cLPPTJrvK9BvWaCG+dyTxw1Qr7U2Tf1KWKr+kzp+VzJTdYloCei3ITEFmEg9 aznA6g5rZg5HZJ3rGEJgN7DB3cHdeUTJZ32caOWxif6C4nLrLQv724za4/RkYbrGryC0 EgZpJNCPyecYx69IuN3LOXTIRQf/fPJ3xld8JF4PRKMHqzWnB0BlBeEW60ajHLWINedn jDJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ixP+2NV2xmhberEx9QxkOmgXZO/nM6ycFZKypvLxm7TMFo2ob 1MGM1USLeLDTnSr03A/xGE/ZZUdqLjYE1fccnHGMZww280pEgw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwh66B3/uEq+YOPy2udwZgtoGhgEyfRgPFXvqIYSddi7ZfT/ToxUyzDBMF0yk5SNr4XoF47jKxzbczKhPFY4f8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:b42:: with SMTP id 63mr8655891vsl.50.1612177760024; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 03:09:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7c7e8679f2da7e1475606d698b2da8c@72481c9465c8b2c4aaff8b77ab5e23c> <028152B6-DA5B-40F7-B944-FF4F31C2BC56@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:09:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t/t1417: test symbolic-ref effects on ref logs To: Junio C Hamano Cc: "Kyle J. McKay" , Git mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:48 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2021, at 11:56, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> The said commit came as part of this topic, ... > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.669.v2.git.1594401593.gitgitgadget@gm= ail.com/ > >> > >> ... so I've added the true author of it on the Cc: list. > > > > Out of curiosity, if Han-Wen Nienhuys is the true author of commit > > 523fa69c36744ae6 why is it that you are both the committer and author > > of that commit in the commit's header? > > See how the e-mail message was formatted in that thread. I just ran > "am" on it (which makes me responsible for committing), and the > authorship comes from the "From:" that was in the body. I suspect > he may have based the patch on some of the "how about doing it like > so" suggestions I made during an earlier discussion and wanted to > give me credit for the input, but I do not remember the context the > patch was originally written in X-<. The classic reflog format doesn't allow '\n' in messages, but different parts of the code did try to write '\n'. This patch was supposed to sanitize the messages in a central location, so alternate ref backends do not trigger spurious differences in how reflogs are represented. Your patch says > has changed in an unexpected way. Can you make the expectations and current behavior explicit? --=20 Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays. -- Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado