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 75B0EC71155 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1682151B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:02:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Oi21PJr5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728060AbgLAUCC (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:02:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:56360 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726148AbgLAUCB (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:02:01 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F9E114846; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:01:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=kNbWqeQEQz9k vP07omSPHt/YXOs=; b=Oi21PJr5LB7cu3ZbXVUQqk01YaoOBIVfuWrpm/OjeJrX FLtNKue/pvQl668MxL2/2t5IrnZstunfnyyy8UO4ShuMGuD4HVpHcbmpkCrjq0UF qNqv0fYF8j+/VYpSyQyA/JZ1U4gFDfNpU9ba8p0EO+GxP+OClg3bNhtTq92lrMc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Y8mId4 jJV1OW0uuYdzzEy9AptCvXyTvo7bvOTEdqAc01Av2BWf9VNN7fhYUw2BEdFh0oQo S6zU9JPzPo8uQKJKrmMhjmYehwiFebEzMhpnHLw/Jt9ziZgZksmUDMxJ1WkFvxaS 3+NF02nnpVOFE+CmXUVHnpbmkYBmH5byz3A18= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14D2114845; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:01:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1419114844; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:01:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] make "mktag" use fsck_tag() References: <20201126012854.399-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20201126222257.5629-1-avarab@gmail.com> <87zh2xvny6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:01:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87zh2xvny6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Tue, 01 Dec 2020 11:08:01 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F8DDA4B8-340F-11EB-9FC7-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > On Thu, Nov 26 2020, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: > >> Now a non-RFC. I went for the approach I suggested in >> <87r1ognv4b.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> of just having fsck_tag() able to >> optionally tell us about its parsed tag/type, thus avoiding any need >> for a custom parser in mktag.c. Hopefully I've addressed the rest of >> the feedback, range-diff below. > > Ping @ Jeff & brian: you said you wanted this in one shape or another, > so mind seeing if the v2 looks good to you?:) > > Junio didn't pick it up for the "What's Cooking" sent out recently, > hopefully some reviewer ACK/NACK will help move it forward. Thanks! True. I don't want to queue too many topics on 'seen', only to end up with a pile of patches that haven't been reviewed adequately and cannot move forward.