Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)

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

Subject: Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
From: Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:59:26 -0700
Cc: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>, "Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx>, Git List <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Neeraj Singh <neerajsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>, "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <CANQDOddSnSByqMrU+b11zywwWjOS+A5W0BSXa0rZURWn5zi2Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e4cc6e10a5d88f4c6c44efaa68f2325007fd935.1646952205.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20220315191245.17990-1-neerajsi@microsoft.com> <220323.86fsn8ohg8.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <CANQDOdeeP8opTQj-j_j3=KnU99nYTnNYhyQmAojj=FZtZEkCZQ@mail.gmail.com> <220326.86ils1lfho.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <CANQDOdeduc8bFA_=R-kXmkM+nb__oTxVhjBfFYj70vCFew1EyA@mail.gmail.com> <220326.86sfr4k9rm.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <CANQDOdfWh5aO9cuJVuUccKyD9Cj+NndisokiewBH9Sq4oSUp5A@mail.gmail.com> <220327.86y20veeua.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <YkGUeQH4y1KIAdCc@ncase> <220328.86pmm6e0i0.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <CANQDOddSnSByqMrU+b11zywwWjOS+A5W0BSXa0rZURWn5zi2Tg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:56 PM Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:15 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So I think you're alone in thinking that anything needs to change here.
>

Ævar,
I apologize for the negative tone and content of this comment.

Thanks,
Neeraj

References:
- [PATCH v6 6/6] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options
  - From: Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
- [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options
  - From: Neeraj Singh
- do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Neeraj Singh
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Neeraj Singh
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Neeraj Singh
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Patrick Steinhardt
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
- Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
  - From: Neeraj Singh

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] untracked-cache: test untracked-cache-bypassing behavior with -uall
Next by Date: [PATCH] cli: add -v and -h shorthands
Previous by thread: Re: do we have too much fsync() configuration in 'next'? (was: [PATCH v7] core.fsync: documentation and user-friendly aggregate options)
Next by thread: [PATCH v6 1/6] wrapper: make inclusion of Windows csprng header tightly scoped
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]