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=-12.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 94BE7C433B4 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 14:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA3B613F7 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 14:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230406AbhELOLv (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 10:11:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58046 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230362AbhELOLu (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 10:11:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982F1C061574 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id i13so18720526pfu.2 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 07:10:41 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OGcB719UAMuqouBI0cthSFg76kts6xdmlBiWE9KosEU=; b=MICgf9R3uuCUMCmlMT2OrCi6JnPnLWyKhnhAGLfjimB750mCe/3ZV1xOPTCFON1qM0 MXFW1RCxbktQn2v+gLZLfQGkBUT2NII9xJWyoBQYyrSr656UkTDFwMzDTLKvJaS7jv1A u8ZIx8oMiimx3u/dIkqO2sBtLrAoL/4JmZKenYEE0Qy4mqluawZ4U+pADTTYQqptmWHl Iw7WsoAg4NktuHRiNkgH4AeD9bZhWW+wQA1v02e0hW6NUMZqoaQoLif+bgdDExv3GOXu 5GaK4dWh4gpoRMOSaS9uPZkRDCiAkEv/CP4hic0EcMcWCERmjkPEzXM3bXODDfG9g8oB OWYA== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OGcB719UAMuqouBI0cthSFg76kts6xdmlBiWE9KosEU=; b=GrzlmFtOzJ4RLfP8ysfzcHdJyeNSDLIVXyaoQ3XTpetXc0SK6LkXaiMn3Z4DjWBcLh v4Do8uEXz5jcIQ3gK7t3bHftuJY7ySCUh5HCOEHx0cEDMpu+tnTlfCezPhTpT9aqBiH/ 0+b3EWl3z8HdnLaNzhWe3mKQKeEZqYwjf2MAv2mjkAQdFjKHv+A9x/7RWYBoYPRT6N1y gUga6yDibuPd6CDVHZP6NJ9MxCdIpiemZ3oXigtH44IwXXZ/PPveW4dbE9zSWMgXpJ1L ds+Yo+Z+tJqznBcoDj0gFvd2B3VPjjMeSO5VPSFN6ah+sTHN5zQegId30+HjiQJ1SQ8q 0/Nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TYlgkAXt8xABjrKdAn3dUvjrxb+QlbqMp6CifOeXJ4EAig0y9 hsaw8cKPyux2OD/phyVK3HheqZ1IIrS2+8lVvctxW5NIToFJ/8bij9A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxShm4moXCyGkh2+YIZoxnrsqNg5EITtG0TJIzcx9QpEuvy8ao2/8KaiL1MUgNZEdHyscRrncCePFQj/DwLQrw= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8a84:0:b029:231:ff56:2c7e with SMTP id a4-20020aa78a840000b0290231ff562c7emr36293502pfc.50.1620828641026; Wed, 12 May 2021 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210511064554.59924-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Long Teng Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 22:10:29 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org >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=E2=80=99s suggestion separately and then submit a new patch, is it the recommended way? (Distinguish between the =E2=80=98reply=E2=80=98 and t= he '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 =E4=BA=8E2021=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8812=E6=97= =A5=E5=91=A8=E4=B8=89 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=884:50=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > Teng Long writes: > > > Fix the 'uploadpack.blobPackfileUri' description in packfile-uri.txt > > and the correct format also can be seen in t5702. > > > > Jonathan Tan 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 b= e > >>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 > > --- > > 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/t= echnical/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 allow= s the > > -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=3D<= sha1> > > -` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, = all such > > -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" belo= w, 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 p= ackfiles > > -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs. > > +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=3D > > + ` 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 chang= e, so > > +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only c= ontain > > +single blobs. > > > > Client design > > -------------