Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] http: rename HTTP_REAUTH to HTTP_RETRY

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nelson Benitez Leon <nelsonjesus.benitez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> After adding the proxy authentication support in
> http, the semantics of HTTP_REAUTH changed more to
> a retry rather than a re-authentication, so we
> rename it to HTTP_AUTH_RETRY.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nelson Benitez Leon <nbenitezl@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Ok this is a new 5/5 patch that have HTTP_AUTH_RETRY as
> Junio suggested, is responding with this patch good or
> do I need to send a new re-roll just for this?

Heh, HTTP_AUTH_RETRY was not something I suggested ;-) The name comes from
your http://mid.gmane.org/4F5F41FF.4000204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx message.

Regarding whether to re-send everything or only a selected subset, please
follow your best judgement, like you did this time.

In general, when you know that the participants in the discussion are
keeping closer eyes on the progress of the series, and they are likely to
understand what you mean when you say "I am replacing the last one in the
v3 series I sent earlier with this patch" when you send "[PATCH v4 5/5]",
it is appropriate to send only the updated one(s).

It makes only two small differences if I am or I am not among the
participants in the discussion.

 - When I happen to be involved in a topic and keeping closer eyes on it,
   an earlier iteration of it is likely to appear on 'pu', so you have one
   more clue to tell if it is OK to send just an update, compared to a
   series that is discussed only on the list without anybody tracking the
   most recent state of the series.

 - When I am not involved in a discussion, often I am sitting on the
   sideline (a recent example is the topic around svn-fe/fast-import
   regarding "ls" command on an empty path), letting the stakeholders in
   the series figure out the details and waiting for the final outcome of
   the discussion [*1*].  For such a topic, I may request a full resend of
   the final version when it is time for me to queue it.

Thanks.  I replaced the corresponding patch with this, after fixing the
subject line.

[Footnote]

*1* This happens when I have more confidence in them than in myself to
judge the best direction for the series.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]