From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EE81F452 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=A1Cai3ez; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232822AbjDDQZD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2023 12:25:03 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56786 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232795AbjDDQZB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2023 12:25:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC29EE7C for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 09:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id o11so31841435ple.1 for ; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:24:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680625499; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rx2juzGiawqSKZAsNo8mEaR2dCBd48YSVUQESvWJlsM=; b=A1Cai3ezyp9B+XvLW4/uzsnfLMOY7bV2ZrHQf9flskcIMEQW7CVGRG0o/iUP5zW+Bl mqZuOENe+K5OocoAtU7nxO5NCQhgkxkiJQl4DHRwnyPD+GAWuKAGqFZl6VLdMaytb5JW ljvs377kqRNXeJq7vEuyrSqndczKRCWT1RRBG4uBY5Bp3+vW+9WWQuJiPiZ5PQ1fyzKP NTiWTToRsD25RUZ77j4JI99j/60PrAMSwutZvcG9QuvbHWFkv0MtmMw3omgB+VOwKmqv fvDcoiLuKMSKyaYK+p86sAHAGCG9YUfoESsavjbWVSKS9DXnzAWRLOj7Uuod2hzTYjCI RYhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680625499; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rx2juzGiawqSKZAsNo8mEaR2dCBd48YSVUQESvWJlsM=; b=HQI412eYHRBTzLp/mv+kGFkrsj8PqJb9+cki0XcEAonx6EYwcIiT8sCrbsad7xZeIk tFJw47Cu+N5cG4UFmCdE72+f8HTOe+E16kGPuQ8yW6sv/48uhwPZxdn7B7DSR2lyPZw3 76nrJv/1SiXTvUo1hMBjcsEuZ8qdGNQRvvSipLgDpNbHxQ0BMt+tkL5XLeupQohxm1Ci dGdWuVwegswmbd/Ob4RDI4/kYPdRMfkWMaNq4l0SzGl+kgCHTZwhVLD8h+OlKcZFtYhw rUUrYpQFX1LG+Dpkb4S0DopahPhWRuSDtrkLr69p3zINEaL9FEXp7+rv9zgQlLlhT0wv bL4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9c2yn96KbVpsSu/tzdhq6KOZsTl4KsPh2RTZkzlmGYVg6CNEsHv EcO2rtDJ1N3+bJ7lFl+hcGY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aajAqseMls2Sq4T/mxSPsTpWyskqq5aDKRr3cXN51ONIsZKE2OVdul/3yTU8dNUxQMaKtdvw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:24e:b0:1a2:17b1:71b with SMTP id j14-20020a170903024e00b001a217b1071bmr3371383plh.66.1680625499248; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (254.80.82.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.82.80.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b11-20020a170902ed0b00b001a22d274045sm8593986pld.144.2023.04.04.09.24.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Clement Mabileau Cc: ClementMabileau via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] branch: improve error log on branch not found by checking remotes refs References: Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:24:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Clement Mabileau's message of "Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:30:33 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Clement Mabileau writes: >> Now I hope you'll understand why I suggested this patch. Maybe I'm the >> only one that ended up in this situation, in this case I'd understand >> that you would no longer be interested in the patch! >> However if you still are, I'll be happy to make the modification you >> asked for. I do not think I made any request to change anything, other than what procedurally is necessary in order to record the authorship in the resulting commit correctly. I did question why the new behaviour was an improvement and your response helped me understand the motivation better. > Well, it would be nice to have an answer in order to know if I should > abandon this patch or not :) Ah, sorry, I didn't get your response as a conditional "if you like it, I'll work on it further", as we usually take "how deeply does the original proposer of a change believes in it" as a strong hint when we need to decide if it is something worth pursuing [*1*]. I am not so enthused to drop everything else and invest 100% of my time and attention to this change, but I am not opposed to the change being proposed, either. We haven't seen anybody other than us two to speak on the review discussion thread of the previous round, so I do not know about other developers and users. The usual next step by the author is * Update and resend the patch(es), taking care of not just correctness of the code but also making sure that the proposed log message reduces the need for those questions asked during the review of the previous round [*2*]. * Wait to see other people who find the change favorable. * After that, the patch may be picked up, advance to 'next' and then to a future release. but the author can abandon it at any step. After all it is author's itch and all we can do here on the list is to give encouragement and help in polishing it. Thanks. [Footnote] *1* We do not take it very kindly when somebody says "I am dreaming this and that change, I think it would be great, and if you promise it will be included in the next version of Git, I'll work on it", and respond with "We do not know how good your change will be until we see it." plus "If a change is so great, we expect you would work on it even only for yourself,its greatness will spread by word of the mouth, many people will yearn for it, and eventually we would come to you begging." A change, in which even the original author does not feel it is worth their time to invest to perfect, has much less chance to be successful. *2* Reviews on the previous round may have asked "why is this change needed?" "what is the intended use case?" etc. The proposed log message is the place to explain these. The goal is to make it easier for future readers of "git log" to understand so that they do not need to ask these questions (unlike reviewers who can ask and get answers from the author of the patch, they do not have anybody to ask because the author of the patch may not be around forever).