| Message ID | 20210511064554.59924-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description | expand |
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 > -------------
>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 > > -------------
Long Teng <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes: >>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'). Yes. Some people seem to omit the final response to reviewer suggestions on the previous round and just send a revised patch, but it is much nicer to cleanly conclude the review cycle for the previous round with a separate response (it could just be "yes, you're right---I'll incorporate your suggestions in the next round, thanks") before starting a new cycle. And the "patch" side should be written to be understandable even by those who do not have access to the review history of the previous round(s)---imagine how it appears in "git log" output to those who did not read the discussion on this mailing list, and write for them. Thanks.
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 -------------