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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9351F54E for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="K7LwdJi4"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234187AbiHKR60 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 13:58:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39708 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229594AbiHKR6Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 13:58:25 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x62c.google.com (mail-ej1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5AF8A220C for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id y13so34746705ejp.13 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=DE6DquMNJbXZeMCi82wdmiPsgCel0hMZKGdCjpS/78Q=; b=K7LwdJi4xje4NwfqUO4qrM4hl5kWe1O3prFvtvm1meo2IN1/+A++Mk74XnUGn3Wxqz HLk4n+w9puQiknr1JRZJ6b7DJ6nxrzRBnpkpVQnYZWOgXBtJV9J7o//LNtJFGUXEtnkK Q18zy6m8L8Qpux0joSc3Figum01tiEW1nD9vkABLAFHcrVrtO3Ni2OZimmYUKecLnSmo xsUmOxHD6ckg5sviKqob9PxzXix3bBicKKVkUGuDrnLDjfY7vISY1eHkBwBWOkdvVbtZ gpfSQCfbJBsl0K0krOFwENtxpvK3TtzwVfiBF4PGGHlL/Qw7bPH7l3itThiZTvfFc8lF +4iA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=DE6DquMNJbXZeMCi82wdmiPsgCel0hMZKGdCjpS/78Q=; b=PdEA/KXhUrIqQg3kWLSjP3ytKv2np5sbM60hIVUE+6JMe5Dz6Vn8pz7tu5gSA+y2m0 hg7ioaqDk/O1IMWn+od8YkAmyQbNLmz+Hr+mMxzUQQp0rpviRmAuTyGptZP28FQBxVcG lRh4oKBsC1qt50WJFVkn5ZfpDWD/6gxuAwP1VEOxs8UbYf3KLXZvc5R6Blc7AYpDX0xK kYIa6OoJN0OP9Kmcj/A+OIeYfWEtrM2q9zJWd2s+VI5qG2g0L38veSlpqtUddWaR5H1J 4OmTQNxMDrkQlFYWntfLLFFgeWRTzRi7tV3sYR51r5AiEcONDTw25jI5QZliUAPfowS7 6unA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1j3GuFmqLoccMPEeQCyUg59X954nc8fxCbH9jpfRRw855YUFME LkrQbo+iWRvqOnOYi7duYhzqcv1JFbS2QQ5qLUs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4NKelPfcxf1vL+NWjlfORSsVOWkrjzNKRbIkq1VfwBlYlWRnmDF4ULN5BfrOGDu20qDYSEwOG5W3j4jodgdkI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c154:b0:733:197:a8c with SMTP id dp20-20020a170906c15400b0073301970a8cmr132275ejc.483.1660240703302; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 10:58:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7a071c9e6be68b58306582dbac5952a5b1bcbc6a.1660233432.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric D Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 13:58:12 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fsmonitor.allowRemote now overrides default behavior To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Eric DeCosta via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric DeCosta Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Given that, in the end, the change is rather small and involves just one file, having it be just one commit is fine. Perhaps my next lesson to learn is to generate and send the patch sets myself, but that will be for another time. Thank you for all your patience, it makes a total noob like me feel welcome. On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:53 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Eric D writes: > > > Well, needless to say I wasn't expecting GitGitGadget to do what it > > did.I had squashed things down to just two commits and forced-pushed > > the second commit thinking that just the relevant stuff from the > > second commit would show up in the next patch. Obviously that didn't > > happen. Sorry about that. > > Oh, sorry to hear that. If your ideal "logical progression" needs > two commits, then please do present the series that way. What GGG > sent out was apparently not that (i.e. the same one from v1 with > full of fix-ups for it in 2/2). >