From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 18:01:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20140505220112.GA17610@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1399121375-14727-1-git-send-email-nod.helm@gmail.com> <20140505050803.GA6569@sigill.intra.peff.net> <69f827ea-0ba2-4ca0-b711-002e1a0010b7@email.android.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, greened@obbligato.org, apenwarr@gmail.com, gpmcgee@gmail.com, mmogilvi_git@miniinfo.net To: James Denholm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 06 19:20:54 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WhiB1-0007Xo-6T for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 18:25:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756861AbaEEWBP (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 18:01:15 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:45576 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756669AbaEEWBO (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 18:01:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 9192 invoked by uid 102); 5 May 2014 22:01:14 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 05 May 2014 17:01:14 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 05 May 2014 18:01:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <69f827ea-0ba2-4ca0-b711-002e1a0010b7@email.android.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: [fixed David's address in cc list] On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:54:30AM +1000, James Denholm wrote: > Given that subtree subtree doesn't really generate a lot of discussion, > would it be advisable to wrap this up (barring further discussion) and send > it off to Junio rather than waiting for further community consensus? I do not know if "lack of discussion" is a good reason to consider something in good shape; oftentimes it is a sign that nobody is interested in the area. We usually rely on "area maintainers" to give an OK to the patches if they are not something that the maintainer himself has an interest in. However, in this case, you did get review, and I think it is pretty easy to see the patches are good even if one does not care about the particular area. So I think they are fine to pass on and apply. Note also that patches like this are a great place to get started, as they help build trust in a contributor, who can later help out with area maintenance. -Peff