From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9B520A10 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750891AbdI2CDS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:03:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:65347 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750839AbdI2CDS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:03:18 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11A799634; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:03:17 -0400 (EDT) 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=M2Kkqfl6iWr7G7QIh39twsL/RPo=; b=QSdWvI oToy6+rW28d5/Ct+BcH7jZFxOaVw7Hf1FX/XltPoTB6E9+2QQvM+xzxQgynstzZB Y+DThwIt6C6e8FctOMqVTaXBxr0xrTgDRRfJZmyQNqfR/ghEsxhyesoh9LPsEHmU MQ0lQP1nwZyKRhVHlURgWNwmfXI4UDEEbSW1g= 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=ZxSxER9FcWPnAt6tarkQzl2zLot6Vc0q r7Xcr3cZc3KxivVf33Z22K0vl0T0lY4oxLUNjVkYzX8bMBRKjKdSKmNnfdn1vRjJ mi7VsrMYWbqRDy8qvRwUHgiBWaRVjSt2RnEOQSns84FRRCKb/0IOw3D5bYe0+9EF 5IQ5WNihO00= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A877299633; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E1AB99632; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:03:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peartben@gmail.com, Christian Couder , git@jeffhostetler.com Subject: Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) References: <20170915134343.3814dc38@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> <20170928175352.9a490564d47172568ea2f416@google.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:03:15 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20170928175352.9a490564d47172568ea2f416@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:53:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5BEFA33C-A4BA-11E7-BF77-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > I've pushed a new version: > > https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/tree/partialclone3 Just FYI, the reason why I commented only on the first patch in your previous series at GitHub wasn't because I found the others perfect and nothing to comment on. It was because I found it extremely painful to conduct review and comment in the webform and gave up while trying to review the series that way just after doing a single patch. I also found it frustrating that it is not even obvious which one of the many patches in the series have been already commented on, without clicking to each and every commit (and back), even when the result is to find that nobody has commented on them yet.