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=-3.9 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 DE5D91F4B4 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:23:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389664AbgJIQXc (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:23:32 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:61733 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389518AbgJIQXb (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:23:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A963570AC2; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:23:29 -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=fGgP4WuHBa8NTGmVGsjJ5N4L8AY=; b=q5DFSU glomx7IEJy5l10G9QqeEOhlWbaQjMDkdklSyj0d50Y2Tsp+7fyZPjfWatOuGIkZM Poq/gvOmyjYC8EUiBsSxlkwznG0uKMB43reAVaPetALm5IVSoPGMmVB5grvnmqJ4 2XBzByQxhE2oR9722RADHtPLo4TiKOYDGAJCA= 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=nMJ7Ku1zQysHOtXi9o7ZwqBmEof+qpRg 46eWy442avTHojI5933nHJsucH7ynOSkskz7B8Vy2U3QE1ytQ3AzAuGwnQ8ZHCbM wADLBMMfWV5M9FSY+8ie2yV0kcx1O05ulRWAmzScw4bUGYymF2apcWDsH2hIUDZS 8t1rZUOhg8A= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A169470ABF; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:23:29 -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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F8F770ABE; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:23:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Chris Webster , Jeff King , "Chris. Webster via GitGitGadget" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: github action - add check for whitespace errors References: <20200922170745.GA541915@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:23:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:20:35 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C4005864-0A4B-11EB-B836-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Chris, > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Chris Webster wrote: > >> Is this waiting for some action on my part? I thought the question of >> running on push vs pull had been resolved (in favour of pull). > > FWIW I agree that the current shape is the best we can do for now (and of > course, full disclosure: I was the one suggesting to restrict this to Pull > Requests because we know exactly the commit range to check in that case). I think this is exactly the use case that After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer{current-maintainer} and "cc:" the list{git-ml} for inclusion. in Documentation/SubmittingPatches was written to address. I usually pay attention to majority of topics and have them on my radar by getting involved in _some_ way in the discussion thread, so I often know when the patch(es) matured enough to be picked up without such a "this is the version after our discussion and it is as close to perfect as we can possibly make" resend. But for some topics, I have no strong opinion on the exact shape of the final patch(es), and/or I have no expertise to offer to help the discussion to reach the final product. In such a case, I'd be just waiting, without getting involved in the discussion, for trusted others to bring the posted patch to a completed form. I think this is such a case. Thanks.