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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 5A6D91F66E for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726730AbgHUVlT (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:41:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:54391 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726187AbgHUVlS (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:41:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582F9E4E40; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:41:16 -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=znFVM3rsMdxZLsD9wBx5KDSfmB4=; b=Ymoc9W 74bxucurrIwfaK7JgxmZlsgFPXlWu2vJlOmaBpZ6yN6Nj/uoeijNOJQP709f2Cjz HeE71sjicFxhAJXBVfVmM7rZ3WD/UNdtOm0J75wKjzVRfMNYPsgHfdOIWUkAc1FR kHnVp7TrBJIsLRihfGteHR1FprewY61f/lpTw= 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=FpnDCNXX2kCdDBcBQ7E5WSLyDz8J7tmK PXDyJIjP6NkO1NGMIEQScMdj7NMcm08jbgtLIMIgXDalFtoD4TdgT7gaRqmfhyiR cVSztsCTz8evbn9LKxC15pbbDRruB/o+OcjfsFl1leFXjI7ALtoGGgIQ7IdAQmTx vHx0EQ4F+cE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50303E4E3F; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:41:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (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 8D596E4E3E; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:41:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller Cc: Jacob Keller , Git mailing list , Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item References: <20200815002509.2467645-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:41:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jacob Keller's message of "Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:17:58 -0700") 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: 09049CA2-E3F7-11EA-B5D8-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jacob Keller writes: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 9:18 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Jacob Keller writes: >> >> > From: Jacob Keller >> > >> > In commit d27eb356bf25 ("remote: move doc to remote.h and refspec.h") >> > the documentation for the refspec structure was moved into refspec.h >> > >> > This documentation refers to elements of the refspec_item, not the >> > struct refspec. Move the documentation slightly in order to align it >> > with the structure it is actually referring to. >> >> Makes sense to me. >> > > Hi Junio, > > I'm thinking I should send the first two patches a separate > preparatory series while I follow up with a v2 of the RFC of negative > refspecs > > Does that seem reasonable? > > Thanks, > Jake Sure; thanks.