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 93F241F463 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 07:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726163AbfLHHxp (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2019 02:53:45 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:46938 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725554AbfLHHxp (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2019 02:53:45 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id m8so9596416edi.13 for ; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 23:53:44 -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=aXjdPshW1fiEQELmf1ZSah8N+tO1lfLfVAT6mLUMpJQ=; b=YFBf7tN0sam/3iJzoDzi2PvnCXIANYRoPYOrPThkBZ8fNFfAb6l7CwiIvlk0xuW104 2eT2gPi28SBPynKssS3bpIh2tRjKUeZbR+J1qjamWqON+ly96XXFdiBPVg6P8nhRJEms tmWMVoXM2JR5tl0gNlmu0OsDd6OFzBAZrT2Jh3U/afR3VOKDu2SrnVvpZEj+axE9DdTk 6ntOm74NdbdX7TCMvJLZUxvlz53ml26omqoqLibbgQaXtLJZb9EFnVO5fPwAjKoH/xlv xY77tKVuFr4OyZwD26HMpiGcRSUvOk7arMK99wg/YPTHNmMGaCeG5AE0X7Xb4I2r0ygS iljg== 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=aXjdPshW1fiEQELmf1ZSah8N+tO1lfLfVAT6mLUMpJQ=; b=P32ocMgutQjC5JWrFZFz5lYPTGmNBKtHOYDvLu15/jGkMEMZ3Vbfvy/dpUSW+btF7x j2pFM9eORVlJELJ3Uqj/umR7gFy5gg9adzmLnkduZ8wFaOsG8MKys1Hw4EfBOHG2vn7Y 8wTnb/SkB3H2Y+XXlGO9j6TnNVdAXd9OJFgbQn7sSRRvflw27sXTsuxKX8ogp/n4CF7f OZ/SBdjR0Px3YnPs/kTtxcOUN+BxLw840zCShjD/bCkAcEtTgYV6R7WzfiR+93JMLtfr ai3qJtHctSYxdOSgt5RRA3TmNoJaxHx5Sa+Sdj7VRWVFuM0DTyNUegOz/754JXtwU/RH Manw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWXK/4Ud5qSJVQyLVhL22xJeGuWZ7SDdp+bHrpNAqMP69KG8z/u bJALT1AOq/P4T3yHw4XFPBeiC5u8uh944c3OxGg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxqe7InCETAAYHuqm19m+/D/dTIxJyiWh7x6dvzYIvdTTlASBMVN33vDelggJ52sIPeCCsbN+lEkTglWiVN4O8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f49:: with SMTP id h9mr24335357ejj.6.1575791623354; Sat, 07 Dec 2019 23:53:43 -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 08:53:31 +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 Johannes, On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:47 PM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019, Christian Couder wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:42 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > > > > > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > > > > > >> Jonathan Tan writes: > > > >> > > > >>>> It could be a good idea if Peff could answer some of the comments made > > > >>>> by Jonathan Tan about patch 9/9. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have put Peff as the author of all the commits. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks. I think the series looks mostly good except for the questions I > > > >>> raised in patch 9/9, so I'll wait for Peff to respond too. > > > >> > > > >> Hmph, the round before this one has been in 'next' for quite a > > > >> while, so should I eject it before waiting for Peff to respond > > > >> before queuing this one? > > > > > > > > After rebasing these v3 patches on top of the base of the one in > > > > 'next', the only difference seems to be the log message of 3/9 and > > > > the contents of 9/9. I guess I'll mark the topic as "on hold" for > > > > now before doing anything, as I am officially taking a time-off most > > > > of this week ;-) > > > > > > So..., that week has passed---anything new? > > > > Unfortunately, no. > > > > If you want I can send an incremental change on the content of 9/9 on > > top of what's in next. Otherwise I can't see what I could do on this. > > > > Peff, could you tell us if you might have time to take a look at this soon? > > Chris, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not your decision to > contribute these patches? Please take a look at: https://public-inbox.org/git/3E56B0FD-EBE8-4057-A93A-16EBB09FBCE0@jramsay.com.au/ and Peff's response to James Ramsay's email. 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. That's why I put Peff as the author of the patches. > Are you saying that you do not understand them > well enough to drive this patch series forward (e.g. address all reviews > and questions) and are basically trying to force Peff to contribute them > instead? Yeah, I don't understand them well enough to answer Jonathan Tan's questions. But no I am not trying to force Peff. I am trying to work with him. When he said he thought we should work on getting the change into upstream, I just thought he meant it and would be willing to help. > Ciao, > Johannes