Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description

[Long Teng <dyroneteng@gmail.com>]

>It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>
>I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
>three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
>but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
>belong to a proposed commit log message proper.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I looked at some patches in the community. If I reply to the
reviewer’s suggestion separately and then submit a new patch, is it
the recommended way? (Distinguish between the ‘reply‘ and the
'patch').

Another question is, if I need to continue to complete this patch,
what do I need to do? I think it is to reply to Jonathan Tan
separately, and then resubmit Patch v2. Is this way correct?

Thanks for your reply.

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 于2021年5月12日周三 上午4:50写道：

>
> Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt
> > and the correct format also can be seen in t5702.
> >
> > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
> >
> >>As for the commit message, limit the title to 50 characters or fewer if
> >>possible. Maybe something like "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> >>description" or something like that.
> >
> > Thanks for mention this, "packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri
> > description" is good and meets the "50 characters" requirement. So the
> > title is modified.
> >
> >>Also in the commit message, maybe mention that the correct format can be
> >>seen in t5702.
> >
> > Because I am implementing another patch[1] about supporting the commit
> > object in packfile-uri, I noticed the `configure_exclusion` function in
> > t5702, which is now mentioned in the commit message.
> >
> > [1]https://public-inbox.org/git/20210507021140.31372-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing?
>
> I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a
> three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient,
> but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to
> belong to a proposed commit log message proper.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >  Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 ++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt
> > @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product,
> >  at least so that we can test the client.
> >
> >  This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the
> > -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1>
> > -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such
> > -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the
> > -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other
> > -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects)
> > -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles
> > -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs.
> > +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=
> > +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be
> > +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted
> > +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support
> > +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made
> > +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so
> > +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain
> > +single blobs.
> >
> >  Client design
> >  -------------