Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > NOTE: This patch is RFC proof of concept patch!: it should be split > onto many smaller patches for easy review (and bug finding) in version > meant to be applied. Hmm, the comments an RFC requests for would certainly be based on reviews of the patch in question, so if the patch is known to be unsuitable for reviewing, what would that tell us, I wonder ;-)? Among the 700 lines added/deleted, 400 lines are from a single new file, so what may benefit from splitting would be the changes to gitweb.perl but it does not look so bad (I haven't really read the patch, though). > Differences between 'blame' and 'blame_incremental' output: Hmm, are these by design in the sense that "when people are getting incremental blame output, the normal blame output format is unsuitable for such and such reasons and that is why there have to be these differences", or "the code happens to produce slightly different results because it is implemented differently; the differences are listed here as due diligence"? > P.P.S. What is the stance for copyrigth assesments in the files > for git code, like the ones in gitweb/gitweb.perl and gitweb/blame.js? There is no copyright assignment. Everybody retains the own copyright on their own work. > P.P.P.S. Should I use Signed-off-by from Pasky and Fredrik if I based > my code on theirs, and if they all signed their patches? I think that is in line with what Certificate of Origin asks you to do. -- 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
