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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 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_MED,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 85E7D1F8C6 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 23:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236628AbhIIXbv (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 19:31:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57165 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234800AbhIIXbu (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 19:31:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE81F0FA5; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 19:30:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=sFusUNoJIkNIUczH6P7S/qoVkVTFkk5o2Zbdy0 MqVhY=; b=kSKRhSJ+coy/xaZ2XVq9YAKAdc4PErJBWxnFn4/HRVMRQSr8BW2nqM 0TVDa7u6GupIpIjtPwybKnc0zbc3HdRjRCskfjIjAhwjbt+0ndEriKwoB/0waRZ9 mlqU1noDIbyfF+iBlTYcsXL0Z7g17QFxn8qoksCr59HZYiy2+LbWg= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6653F0FA4; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 19:30:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.196.172.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D142F0FA3; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 19:30:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] pack-write: refactor renaming in finish_tmp_packfile() References: <35052ef494dbc55119614f3e22742d8d814b21b1.1631157880.git.me@ttaylorr.com> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 16:30:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Thu, 9 Sep 2021 17:07:57 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F1209CA0-11C5-11EC-9988-CD991BBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > In each of these three, I wasn't able to decide if you wanted these > addressed in a newer version of this series, or if you were happy enough > with the result to pick it up. I'm happy to send you a new version, but > don't want to clog your inbox if you were already planning on picking > this up. Well, it is often a no-cost operation to replace a topic that has been in 'seen' with a newer round, so you do not have to worry about my inbox. As I often say, if it turns out to be a bad idea, I can just drop it from 'seen' as if I didn't see it ;-) Anyway. If a newer version will come, I'd love to see the review comments at least considered (be it from me or from anybody else) --- after all, if the original were good enough, reviewer(s) wouldn't have raised them as potential issues. Of course, "considered" is the key word. No need to blindly follow; as long as there is a solid reason to justify why changing would be worsening the well-written original. Thanks.