On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:42:30 -0800, Junio C Hamano <gitster at pobox.com> wrote:
> Please drop the above the next time.

Oops. Yes, I missed that.

> FWIW, I only said "_at least_ you need consent from them", and it was not
> meant to be an exhaustive list.  "blame -C -C -C" may tell you more.

Fair enough.

> You are the party that wants this relicensing, not me.  Please do not
> burden me with excessive legwork for you, but help me a bit more
> proactively to make this happen.

I hope you see I haven't asked you to do any additional legwork. A
suggestion was made to construct a patch, which I did. You always have
the option of accepting or rejecting the patch as you see fit.

> Oh, I never said "do not use message ID".  I said "message ID alone is not
> good enough for most people".  Users of gmane and notmuch who know the
> tool they use would benefit from having message ID, _too_, but even if you
> were a user of notmuch, unless you have subscribed to the list and have
> your own archive, you wouldn't be able to say "show id:frotz".

Certainly. My assumption was that in a commit message for git, readers
would naturally assume that a message ID with no additional
specification could be found in the archives of the standard git mailing
list, (which is the case here). Otherwise, I would have qualified the
message ID more specifically.

-Carl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100223/1a256ae2/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to