From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FD1C4338F for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 19:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAD26128C for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 19:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230112AbhHOTft (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:35:49 -0400 Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch ([185.70.43.22]:24659 "EHLO mail-4322.protonmail.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229502AbhHOTfs (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:35:48 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 19:35:04 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eagain.st; s=protonmail; t=1629056116; bh=31Ws1bhmZ0mZGdNQ9ZwN7Yh1aBf48rrLACDU8ZcZmT0=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Q6zywR+bdpwnbxBqTXvTb+gXYmdZQ86rAkR49YIfPEBuPCwBX7GtSEjdvaBPbq/iX S6TvqJ6ux1F4XtFc2wxJ1FHiOH2yQFGJD2OOM22XpaE7T7ttE+Gx5KZDNvtRp10b5c 8XwqfbfuXw+lbxtOVHx6gPbL139IY8xPfcJqsLqE6E/WQ576z6Amuz8sZ/la5E5qpz OMVTpshBNiETj7X/DOFNFKVdShdSS6VGClLhWGUBeVSOhs6y/gdsyEAsLeEZEfQOeC EADe8wusi6Jv1bm01wsnDxSB9XsMqiSShJRKLb49nlfCNYM3JWhCUL+bHYdA5SHaNH usZNeST+ynKtQ== To: Johannes Schindelin From: Kim Altintop Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, jonathantanmy@google.com, bwilliams.eng@gmail.com, jrnieder@gmail.com, sunshine@sunshineco.com Reply-To: Kim Altintop Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] upload-pack: treat want-ref relative to namespace Message-ID: <20210815213453.GB10013@schmidt.localdomain> In-Reply-To: References: <20210730135845.633234-1-kim@eagain.st> <20210731203415.618641-1-kim@eagain.st> <20210804203829.661565-1-kim@eagain.st> <20210804205951.668140-1-kim@eagain.st> <20210809175530.75326-1-kim@eagain.st> <20210813062237.10403-1-kim@eagain.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Johannes, thanks for your response. This is my very first patch to git.git, and a lot= of it is learning about the conventions and expectations towards contributors,= as well as getting familiar with the tooling while trying to avoid silly mista= kes. So please bear with me. On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > CC'ing Johannes Schindelin as suggested by git-contacts. > > `git-contacts` wouldn't know that there are better experts on the > namespace matter. I can see now that this could come across weird. I should've written: "CC'ing Johannes Schindelin, who started to turn up in `git-contacts` outpu= t, although I couldn't quite infer why. I haven't received any feedback about = the documentation change yet, and didn't have much success trying to find revie= wers by inspecting the history (parts of the file where moved). I am assuming th= at `git-contacts` is better than me at this, and Johannes' name shows up becau= se of touching the documentation. Johannes: feel free to ignore if this assumptio= n is wrong." With this said, if you have any suggestions about finding reviewers for spe= cific parts of a patch, or who are the experts on a more cross-cutting topic, I w= ould appreciate if you'd share them! > My only comment is that I would find the diff to `upload-pack.c` much > easier to parse if the `arg` variable hadn't been renamed. Can you explain why? Just because the diff would be smaller? I can see that= in a larger patch it might have been preferable to put the rename into a separat= e commit, but in a hunk-sized change it seemed fine. It is also that this particular naming ("refname_nons") is used in other places in upload-pack.c= , so it seemed obvious that, if I introduce namespace handling where it was previously missing, the terminology (if you will) should be the same. >From you comment, it seems like the proposer of a patch should assume that = the reviewers only look at the diff as sent in the email, and not any context. Junio's response suggests something else, but I guess it's fair that if som= eone feels like they got CC'ed by mistake, they're not going to spend too much t= ime. So my question from above stands: are there better ways to find the right p= eople to CC, especially for newbies? Thanks, Kim