On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:38 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sibi Siddharthan <sibisiddharthan.github@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Since this patch series has been merged with pu, I didn't know whether > > I should wait till the patch gets merged into 'next' or do the change > > immediately. > > Ah, OK. Being in 'pu' does not mean no more than that the patch was > sent to the list and I happened to have seen it. If it were ready > to be merged to 'next', I may have marked it as such in the "What's > cooking" report, but otherwise, the default is to be polished until > it gets ready. > > > One more thing, there is an issue with the scripts' permissions when > > run in Linux. They don't have execute permissions. > > What script? Your scripts you add in the patch series? What is the > reason why they lack execute permissions? Forgot to "chmod +x"? > > It sounds like, in addition to issues pointed out during the review > cycle, you have identified more issues that can be solved to make > the series more complete yourself, which is a very good thing. It > is hard for anyone to review one's own patches and find issues, and > you seem to be getting the hang of it. These are all good thing to > address before the topic becomes ready for 'next'. > Danh was the one who pointed this out, credit goes to him. The reason I deferred modifying in PATCH v4 was because there was no easy way(cross platform) to change file permissions. The workaround is to juggle the files to a temporary directory, and then copy them to where they are intended to be with the required permissions. This added quite a bit of code. Since Windows platform was the priority, I did not address this issue. I know that this issue needs to be addressed to make the script more complete, so will have a UNIX conditional block for addressing this issue. Thank You, Sibi Siddharthan > And there is no need to hurry. If you do not want to waste time in > repeated rewrite and review cycle, the best way may be to go slowly > and carefully to avoid "this was known to be suboptimal even when I > wrote it, but I didn't bother fixing it before sending it out, but > it was noticed during the review so I have to update it and send a > new round". > > Thanks.
