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=-3.6 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 7B9691F463 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 10:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726418AbfLHK05 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2019 05:26:57 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:36496 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726163AbfLHK05 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2019 05:26:57 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id j17so9805045edp.3 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 02:26:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hbAnnQEeRrE1HgGjbuUsL1aLXBk2ROrdiG4CLHzYiAk=; b=g6CX0w42rr9+ZLtn43/C9cGkZlgJH+dTCsyKQcXcVJnPMw/Jrqxd+3/I6P7Yq0AP6L hD+ZM93HON94mq4t3wN0wY8qBJT7jxwwiOc8xg+0EltaHe+abo6mMK9lhg821PoKVcld Jz2VTXPm8XXqtHg+pMh8rCh61pjA0wqlmz0EXqu4+NsjVFbHtKkCoEPU6JJNwASUiSwg V688nlARFqyt8umBzl/tN5jNDi6t9gmSILr7v5Fu98zqqvDNtDIioKYk3m8oGJAjWJ4q ZGdxzU8Iy/JZtd24heMTRvIW5jV6zzEWnWPfbOuKEQmo6zVs65ffJA5CghtAia7Tb3IB t4Eg== 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; bh=hbAnnQEeRrE1HgGjbuUsL1aLXBk2ROrdiG4CLHzYiAk=; b=KXShjrBpXLUpUwX8rMCZwXiuuVB07WNIqVgBGrJquNckEDj0KBlmRSXKaKnhc0TMWr Xu7aCxUZuWavp6M/lQmi1Cr4agxckEzS80nStS2rKp/NbngOKlpKytYwvrLecn/DB3v0 QfcILK0s2p+2tJSSnJo2qNKiRs2IuKl9//e3GA0I5wvWeIaQpuDGEydcfthJJsIJgrMm hBnUUS4p22zN5bhBP0yk+35NQaspz6nK/zOhME5nIsrji1aF9jx3RVRPo9qLvK26vYWf 0WUTkYtIkIpr3QNJQAhdd+T2oOJPybGlrub/+ngkeijin6MgNesAJ+08aQfzJ/k04vcZ 4YGA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUsMjaYRsrHQW6Et9jcDHZJrvcmND4PYFdR/I0Z1OxMLKxUQSwC +sMAABwzFHrBIrj9lVLlOAFv91b16CLwCfHxZCo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwaNwJdUbxuOic0pe9kptuIxqDrbL8d+ZATlfgzqr4LSMKyG6GldJQjLmQZkjv1nPE50VOtHXUhtYi6dPqfo+k= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:681:: with SMTP id u1mr24540713ejb.81.1575800815210; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 02:26:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191115141541.11149-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20191115180319.113991-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Christian Couder Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:26:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Rewrite packfile reuse code To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Jonathan Tan , git , Christian Couder , Ramsay Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Dscho, On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 9:54 AM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Christian Couder wrote: > > > Peff wrote: > > > > > It's been on my todo list to upstream for a while, but I've dragged my > > > feet on it because there's a lot of cleanup/polishing from the original > > > patches (they were never very clean in the first place, and we've merged > > > a dozen or more times with upstream since then, so the updates are > > > spread across a bunch of merge commits). > > > > and then: > > > > > Yeah, I think we should work on getting our changes (including those > > > stats) into upstream. > > > > So actually I thought that I was helping Peff on this, though I know > > of course that it's also helping GitLab and everyone else. > > In my experience, sending the initial set of patches is the easiest part > of contributing patches, by far. The most involved part of the process is > to react to reviewer comments and to prepare new iterations. > > You can see this challenge in action in all the Git for Windows > patches/patch series I am "upstreaming". > > So actually I think that you are doing a disservice to Peff: if he had > time for that tedious part of the patch contribution, I am sure it would > have been no burden at all to send the initial set of patches. I think Peff can say by himself what he thinks about my work when I rework the raw patches he sends to help get them upstreamed. It's not the first time that I have done that and every time I have done it, I think he has found it useful. Even this time he also wrote that my work has been useful. > > That's why I put Peff as the author of the patches. > > No, that is not the reason. You might think that that is the reason, but > the real reason why Peff is marked as the author of those patches is that > he really authored those patches. That doesn't contradict at all what I am saying. I am saying that I kept Peff as the author because I am just helping him, which means that I actually acknowledge that he really authored those patches, no? > In light of what you said, I don't think that it is a good idea to go > forward by leaning even further on Peff. From his activity on the Git > mailing list, I deduce that he is not exactly in need of even more work. I think it's ok to ping people, even many times, when they have said that they want to work on something but for some reason don't do it. That's what Junio did by the way too. Junio just pinged everyone involved, and then I pinged Peff specifically as I think the part of the work left is more his than mine. If Peff had said that he doesn't want to work on this any more then I wouldn't ping him, and I would perhaps try something else, like just ask for only the first patch (1/9) to be merged. > Instead, I think that if you truly want to push these patches forward, you > will have to dig deeper yourself, and answer Jonathan Tan's questions, and > possibly adjust the patches accordingly and send a new iteration. I think that it's ok to ping Peff until he says that he doesn't or cannot for some reason work on this anymore. This shouldn't be a big burden for him to say that, no? > I perceive it as very unfair toward Peff that this has not yet happened. I perceive it as unfair to me that you think that I have to do a lot of work on this when Peff hasn't even said that he doesn't want to, or cannot, answer Jonathan's question. Best, Christian.