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=-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_PASS,SPF_PASS 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 414D01F9FC for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230284AbhCYUbw (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:31:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:61320 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230207AbhCYUba (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:31:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539061329F3; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT) (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=IMHad79t3ohPtO/wzpbxMcbc4kc=; b=XWES84 NAleme6Kg6+HW1bp7qhT27OMccpUoTcKLK3uMqT8G6N/+hwlVuVaJicn1wEVGXoO phObpI8yw7BvDEI08YTg9QgaLTKRqwMTIJhuNZ9NTpECFUZ9f+trJCrwgQrYmyUo EnCNtsrMlGB62asqM0fSth8Lqc1oX+gHZ8+wQ= 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=O6lSL9rwbhkdGAhailMr78vXkSO1fPIp /W5+TxsXYbFD29UcqXoItERIdd+l2XPXdqBatItKgmdNyRVrSiX23EwwbTiqcGt5 CIwqR+iKl4Hb5J7wb9MGwAsvUAcD7V6lAVgt+knvPCoraXnV9Cqlmd9huXYIS3cS ibk83LmI7+A= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6961329F2; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6045B1329F1; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:31:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Li Linchao via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , dscho , Jonathan Tan , Li Linchao Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] builtin/clone.c: add --reject-shallow option References: Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:31:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Li Linchao via GitGitGadget's message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:09:17 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1315C980-8DA9-11EB-ACC9-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Li Linchao via GitGitGadget" writes: > ... > This patch offers a new option '--reject-shallow' that can reject to > clone a shallow repository. > > Signed-off-by: lilinchao > > Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee > Reviewed-by: Junio C Hamano > Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan The Reviewed-by trailer means something quite different from what you seem to think here. It is only given by the reviewers to the patch when they carefully reviewed and agrees what is in the patch. The patch authors are in no position to add it, unless they are explicitly told by reviewers that "this patch now can have my Reviewed-by:" or some equivalent. The (ideal) flow of events is 0. The author comes up with an idea and writes a patch. 1. The patch is sent to the list and Cc'ed to people who may be familiar with the area the patch touches. For second and subsequent iterations, those who gave review comments to the previous iterations are also good people to Cc to. 2. People give comments as reponses to the patch. (a) some may be happy with the iteration of the patch they reviewed, and may say "Thanks for contributing, this is now Reviewed-by: me". For second and subsequent iterations, they may say "This was improved relative to the previous iteration, and it still looks good and you have my Reviewed-by:". (b) some may give constructive criticism, alternatives, enhancements, or outright "not a good idea, don't do this because ...". (c) some may just act as cheerleaders. 3. The author thinks about the review comments and also may find improvement him/herself. (a) There may need an update to the patch. If the patch has changed since the previous version in any way, ignore Reviewed-by: received in 2-(a). When a significant help was given to update the patch, you may add "Helped-by:" trailer to credit the person's contribution. Your own "Signed-off-by:" appears the last in the trailers (i.e. "this iteration of the patch was written with help from these people, and then I am signing it off just before sending it out"). Go back to 1. and repeat as many times as it takes. (b) There may not be a need for any update to the patch. Only add the Reviewed-by: received in 2-(a) and otherwise do not change anything. Your own "Signed-off-by:" appears the last in the trailers. Send it to the list and to the maintainer (me). 4. The maintainer applies the patch, unless there is no other comments received on that supposedly-the-final version sent in 3-(b), but a late review comment may make us realize that it was premature, in which case we may go back to 3-(a).