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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 E0E511F463 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726411AbfLKVqu (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:46:50 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:60545 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726141AbfLKVqu (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:46:50 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C216950A7; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:46:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=yTdQAaF/esF7PFbpCCmc3AYQc3k=; b=H1oOMG VsDFuW/t1+H/SfgwvAZ1WmEdd7hiVhoCbFZcin8rLzu5bdDt0gekKgRfq3MuxpVK BZusXpnOB0FoU6qfiop7MqQwj63Uz36p1BesRKyZC/k1M4Xl0OCCXiCQKMMFTvzC 4ijTPUkivE3eSDgV8BQC4czBlzD1DzuLGKVOc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=iaFPwmryMMqUPlqG1mkQGU4vkKEOtV8C +Q+TtRMvpuwcAdlC/HPTm6GffKJpLuzBdtUMuh4+STS5cF0ucET+UUjQKe8QO0od uABm3lLY44PWVw2XQHzT2hbrSrbsd2IECdsNwU89O9wtDzCHzHdW2X3Bh66iN7FW c1unf+mpsPs= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F81950A6; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:46:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5618950A5; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:46:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Luke Diamand Cc: Denton Liu , Ben Keene , Jeff King , Ben Keene via GitGitGadget , Git Users , Yang Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] git-p4.py: Cast byte strings to unicode strings in python3 References: <20191207194756.GA43949@coredump.intra.peff.net> <95ead4b6-21bb-1aa2-f16f-888e61a4e4c0@gmail.com> <20191211171356.GA72178@generichostname> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:46:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Luke Diamand's message of "Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:19:48 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B84AC37C-1C5F-11EA-A5CD-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Luke Diamand writes: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 17:57, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Denton Liu writes: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 08:54:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Ben Keene writes: >> >> >> >> > Yes indeed! >> >> > >> >> > I hadn't pulled before I attempted the rebase, and got bit. Yes those >> >> > shouldn't be there! >> >> >> >> So, other than that, this is ready to be at least queued on 'pu' if >> >> not 'next' at this point? >> > >> > From what I can tell, Ben agreed to have this series superseded by Yang >> > Zhao's competing series[1]. >> >> OK. Let me not worry about this one, then, at least not yet. >> > > Oh, I hadn't seen Yang's python3 changes! I haven't been paying attention to them either. The patches I started commenting on from Ben were easy to read and understand, and I didn't even know until Denton pointed out that Ben's series yielded the way. > What do we need to do to get these ready for merging? Somebody needs to take the ownership of the topic---we cannot afford to have two independently made topics competing reviewers' attention. If Ben wants to drop his version and instead wants to use Yang's ones, that's OK but Ben probably is in a lot better position than bystanders like me to review and comment on Yang's to suggest improvements, if he hasn't done so. The same for those who reviewed Ben's series earlier. It would make sure that the single topic a combined effort to produce the best of both topics. If there is something Ben's patches did that is lacking in Yang's, it may be worth rebuilding it on top of Yang's series.