On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:18 PM Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > .... > > > Thanks for the link, and sorry for not having followed this > > > conversation closely enough to have seen your previous replies. While > > > > No worries, you were trying to be a good citizen by reviewing patches, > > and the patches didn't come with links to the old threads > > That's not true. This patch series [1] came with a link to the previous > patch series [2]. > > I didn't, cannot, and shouldn't contain hundreds of links to the hundres > of responses to this topic over the past 10 years. Sorry for being unclear; by links I meant either direct or indirect ones. Your series came with a link to the previous series. The previous series, however, only contained a link to a series you were basing upon rather than to a series which contained the changes you were resubmitting. Thus, following the links in each submission would not get you back to the old discussions (I double checked). Also, this particular point was not meant as a critique of your current submission. I don't even think it's all that big a deal for the previous submission either (it's an easy oversight to make given that Junio submitted a portion of one of your old series). My point was simply that Alex didn't need to feel bad for not having been aware of all the old discussions; even if he had tried to dive deep by recursively following all the links, he wouldn't find it.
