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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 837F9C28CBC for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 17:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D6C21582 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 17:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dFl9SzME" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728196AbgEIRsW (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 13:48:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48530 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726214AbgEIRsV (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 13:48:21 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x342.google.com (mail-ot1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::342]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 516CCC061A0C for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x342.google.com with SMTP id c3so4170730otp.8 for ; Sat, 09 May 2020 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ef1wV+xe16ZERGv66DB0vU4m8peeHBbl5c96QJCfNRE=; b=dFl9SzMEBR74Z7Hs80MmyVsL1QFOUfHeKZ+x9ejL7hKESUG9YgsMIT2OCUWqIwq+0K UVm9ZMPZIhsPe/GpKe5Prlu45S9mRX2TghZUQ73mE/B1DgLzXvDDmwBfSt8CjMCCuk16 +vvFdI7LgPwmNM8+yNYC6NYxtofzvM48/CGD+uYWiUcprN5X4JF2ERJnCabjS21DrBJg tP4RneL/NEKtNbWBWJ0GUMbrKXaf1grdTRDdw9+PA/Z/2DF9kHlhrImyHlF+4I8QpDwP Fxs2aXqVPRnWj7/r1KQR/hXt+wN8HE2pZMSmgRLpbCxWb843ChtldtAdFwEK1L6XOvAl pooQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ef1wV+xe16ZERGv66DB0vU4m8peeHBbl5c96QJCfNRE=; b=oODKloqXIbRG2I+2qkraR25t2fFUjHk5WK2PAv4FDg4hG7wa2FYnWcXgi1LSEYcTIC juA0CYPqchEhYQaB3J9CHQSYa6ESFLjLoHkmd1w8c8SpImaNKStIAOifeoB+FGIeuhjW Sbrq065XAS1XQjv53Ob5i4FLnPSYvFUJKQrWHrWVo1PqrBqEc5/tmI5T2/+VtGRPF+hG Cw8t6wdx25yXYdlymKMT6AfduFbeTjCY5fZUlLwymev7UsoRVSnOJCR934I4KSOK/oNo LpjY0Z2U9AI/k2yQXS9ep3IfXkgfICWrMKAXoRpjvXIBQNKTkwxwO64U86YneX0uyqXX m7MQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYX+r8kVx+fj6+VkKXBenLb2llWGL+5w6KKCjtYFxSRFKYaL+7I LMv7485nDSMXlRnLvh4jlFcU2jACkq9Vj5EvFXA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIJU6h+l7mZ4AhC9ylCR4++6ih4+5CUS+svCtsq0Ga2WIKCI317Uy+vBIGanllF1GgIC9mxI3PJqvgF2/XVJR8= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3637:: with SMTP id w52mr5991228otb.177.1589046499543; Sat, 09 May 2020 10:48:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Hariom verma Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 23:18:08 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fetch-pack: remove fetch_if_missing=0 To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:32 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Christian Couder writes: > > > It's ok to refer to a previous commit, but I think it would be better > > if you could repeat a bit the reasons why removing the > > fetch_if_missing global is a good idea, and not just rely on the > > previous commit. > > > > "it is plausible" also doesn't make it very clear that it's what the > > patch is actually doing. > > I had the same reaction. You could even write a random gibberish in > your patch and write "it's plausible this set of random changes made > without understanding what is going on in the current code might > have some chance to work" in your log message, and we would not even > want to touch such a patch with 10-foot pole. > > The proposed log message above unfortunately makes this patch > indistinguishable from such a trash, unless we follow the codepaths > that are *not* touched by this patch and think about ramifications > of the removal *ourselves*. In other words, it does nothing to help > the readers to support the change. > I understand it must be too hard for you to deal with such [trash]patches. My apologies. Will improve in next revision Thanks, Hariom