Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > At this point I think we've incorporated all the outstanding feedback. > Does this test need any further changes to allow the ref-namespaces > branch to graduate to next? No more nitpicks from me on this patch at least for now. Are people who expressed concern during the review on the previous round of the series happy with the second round? I recall there was a strong sentiment that it is regrettable that the series specifically changes fetch and push and is not a more general mechanism. Personally I am OK with the approach taken by this series, as I do not offhand think of other ways to serve a modified namespace. You have to view the unaltered reality when interacting with your own refs to enumerate the objects you have, while giving the altered view to your clients that is limited to the "virtual" space. > (Also, for future reference, do you prefer to see later versions of > patches as replies to the previous version, as I've made this mail a > reply to PATCHv2, or do you prefer to see them as new threads?) Often it is very convenient to be able to go "up" in the thread to re-read the discussions in the previous round. On the other hand it sometimes gets inconvenient when viewing tons of threads to have a beginning of a new round buried deep in other threads. Referring to the messages in the previous round by their message-id (or thread.gmane.org/ URL) in the body of the patch message below "---" lines may solve both issues, but I can go either way. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html