On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:30:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In each of these three, I wasn't able to decide if you wanted these > > addressed in a newer version of this series, or if you were happy enough > > with the result to pick it up. I'm happy to send you a new version, but > > don't want to clog your inbox if you were already planning on picking > > this up. > > Well, it is often a no-cost operation to replace a topic that has > been in 'seen' with a newer round, so you do not have to worry about > my inbox. As I often say, if it turns out to be a bad idea, I can > just drop it from 'seen' as if I didn't see it ;-) > > Anyway. > > If a newer version will come, I'd love to see the review comments at > least considered (be it from me or from anybody else) --- after all, > if the original were good enough, reviewer(s) wouldn't have raised > them as potential issues. > > Of course, "considered" is the key word. No need to blindly follow; > as long as there is a solid reason to justify why changing would be > worsening the well-written original. Agreed strongly :-). After reading through your review again, I felt like the individual components were greater than the sum of their parts, and that the v2 of this combined series is on the whole better than v1. Thanks for taking the time to review it. Thanks, Taylor
