On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:42:30 -0800, Junio C Hamano gits...@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
pgpYwOAf7LRnb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch