Jonathan Tan <> writes:

> This is regarding the packfile negotiation in fetch-pack. If there is a
> concern that MAX_IN_VAIN would be hit too early (as a consequence of the
> patch below), I'm currently investigating the possibility of improving
> the negotiation ability of the client side further (for example, by
> prioritizing refs or heads instead of merely prioritizing by date in the
> priority queue of objects), but I thought I'd send the patch out first
> anyway to see what others think.
> Jonathan Tan (1):
>   fetch-pack: do not reset in_vain on non-novel acks
>  fetch-pack.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Just a hint, because you are relatively new to the project.  It
usually is not very productive to have a cover letter to a single
patch.  Your cover letter either ends up being useless, or ends up
costing you time by having to repeat what you write for the patch
anyway (and making others to read it twice).

Below the "---" line of the single patch is often a better place to
tell a backstory of the patch if you need to.

Reply via email to