{"thread":{"id":"11682","subject":"Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","startedAt":"2008-01-20T10:10:27Z","lastAt":"2008-01-21T19:13:55Z","messageCount":17,"participants":["Marco Costalba","Wincent Colaiuta","Steffen Prohaska","Johannes Schindelin","Junio C Hamano","Quim K Holland","David Kastrup","Paolo Ciarrocchi","Juanma Barranquero","Imran M Yousuf","Rogan Dawes","David Tweed","Jakub Narebski"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"66026","messageId":"e5bfff550801200210y212d0921x214773596810be52@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","fromName":"Marco Costalba","fromEmail":"mcostalba@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-20T10:10:27Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-20T10:10:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mcostalba@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\nabout contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\nout.\n\nWould be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\nthis pending stuff?\n\nI understand that you want people focused on fixing bugs, but I also\nunderstand that people don't ;-)\n\nOpening a new_stuff branch could have the following benefits:\n\n- Give more time to fix bugs before 1.5.4 is out without stopping\npeople from having fun and reduce the pressure to release.\n\n- Reduce the merging impact when master reopens because patches are\nalready merged in new_stuff and developers have already taken care of\nconflicts\n\n- Do not slow down the wheel: I can develop some patches and keep them\nmyself, but until are not discussed in the list and eventually got in\nmaster has little meaning to continue develop additional stuff.\n\n- Perhaps it's lack of reviewing time on your side that worries you\n(as is normal because we are on bug fixes mode in master) but upgrade\nfrom new_stuff to master would be not automatic nor guaranteed but at\nleast people have an idea at what's going on and can keep contributing\nin code and ideas.\n\n\nComments?\n\n\nMarco\n"},{"id":"66027","messageId":"0B23B7DB-8AB2-4D8D-BE50-917651238353@wincent.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"e5bfff550801200210y212d0921x214773596810be52@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2008-01-20T10:18:23Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-20T10:18:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 20/1/2008, a las 11:10, Marco Costalba escribió:\n\n> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n> out.\n>\n> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\n> this pending stuff?\n>\n> I understand that you want people focused on fixing bugs, but I also\n> understand that people don't ;-)\n>\n> Opening a new_stuff branch could have the following benefits:\n>\n> - Give more time to fix bugs before 1.5.4 is out without stopping\n> people from having fun and reduce the pressure to release.\n>\n> - Reduce the merging impact when master reopens because patches are\n> already merged in new_stuff and developers have already taken care of\n> conflicts\n>\n> - Do not slow down the wheel: I can develop some patches and keep them\n> myself, but until are not discussed in the list and eventually got in\n> master has little meaning to continue develop additional stuff.\n>\n> - Perhaps it's lack of reviewing time on your side that worries you\n> (as is normal because we are on bug fixes mode in master) but upgrade\n> from new_stuff to master would be not automatic nor guaranteed but at\n> least people have an idea at what's going on and can keep contributing\n> in code and ideas.\n\nWe already have two such branches: next and pu.\n\nHere's an old version of a mail from Junio describing the different \nbranches; I know he's sent out newer ones but this it he one that I \ncould lay my hands on:\n\nhttp://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/39954\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"66028","messageId":"e5bfff550801200224t6a76f67bp5e550476aa1ac9c@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"0B23B7DB-8AB2-4D8D-BE50-917651238353@wincent.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","fromName":"Marco Costalba","fromEmail":"mcostalba@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-20T10:24:53Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-20T10:24:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mcostalba@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Jan 20, 2008 11:18 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:\n>\n> We already have two such branches: next and pu.\n>\n\nYes of course, the name of the branch is not the point here, I\npurposely choose an unrealistic name 'new_stuff' to underline this,\nsorry if it was not clear.\n"},{"id":"66030","messageId":"DD3B1282-B9A7-4A29-8F21-5D9C1A8048E1@zib.de","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"e5bfff550801200210y212d0921x214773596810be52@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","fromName":"Steffen Prohaska","fromEmail":"prohaska@zib.de","sentAt":"2008-01-20T10:47:29Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-20T10:47:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"prohaska@zib.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/217580?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Jan 20, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Marco Costalba wrote:\n\n> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n> out.\n>\n> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\n> this pending stuff?\n\nI don't think this is a good idea ...\n\n\n> I understand that you want people focused on fixing bugs, but I also\n> understand that people don't ;-)\n>\n> Opening a new_stuff branch could have the following benefits:\n>\n> - Give more time to fix bugs before 1.5.4 is out without stopping\n> people from having fun and reduce the pressure to release.\n\n... because I believe it is a good thing to keep the pressure\nto release. The 1.5.4 cycle already became quite long.\n\n\n> - Reduce the merging impact when master reopens because patches are\n> already merged in new_stuff and developers have already taken care of\n> conflicts\n>\n> - Do not slow down the wheel: I can develop some patches and keep them\n> myself, but until are not discussed in the list and eventually got in\n> master has little meaning to continue develop additional stuff.\n\nIsn't this the idea: slow down a bit, focus on fixing bugs instead\nof developing new stuff, and release 1.5.4.\n\n\n> - Perhaps it's lack of reviewing time on your side that worries you\n> (as is normal because we are on bug fixes mode in master) but upgrade\n> from new_stuff to master would be not automatic nor guaranteed but at\n> least people have an idea at what's going on and can keep contributing\n> in code and ideas.\n\nIsn't this the purpose of pu?\n\n\tSteffen\n"},{"id":"66033","messageId":"alpine.LSU.1.00.0801201347040.5731@racer.site","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"e5bfff550801200210y212d0921x214773596810be52@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2008-01-20T13:49:15Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-20T13:49:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Marco Costalba wrote:\n\n> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear \n> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is \n> out.\n\nWhich is good.\n\n> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for this \n> pending stuff?\n\nNo. The purpose of the rc cycle is to _stabilise_ things, which means \nthat people should _focus_ on stabilising things.\n\nIf you give them enough to play with, they just get sidetracked, and the \nstabilisation is left to... Junio. Which is not only hard on our good \nmaintainer, but outright mean.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"66045","messageId":"7vlk6k6z4x.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"e5bfff550801200210y212d0921x214773596810be52@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush developer accumulated patches?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2008-01-20T20:05:50Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-20T20:05:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Marco Costalba\" writes:\n\n> I understand that you want people focused on fixing bugs, but I also\n> understand that people don't ;-)\n\nCurrent policy during rc stabilization period is roughly:\n\n - No new feature is accepted, starting early in the rc cycle;\n\n - An intrusive fix is sent back and requested to be rewritten\n as minimum \"fix\" without enhancements, starting mid rc cycle;\n\n - I do not want to take patches early.\n\nThe third point is a double-edged sword:\n\n - Developers can easily get distracted when encouraged to do\n new things. That's human nature. Everybody finds doing new\n things more interesting than finding and fixing existing\n bugs.\n\n This is especially true if the fix is about somebody else's\n code and the breakage does not affect you. Even your own\n earlier half-baked-hack that has not been discovered by other\n people is often not interesting to fix (once discovered, the\n embarrassment factor tends to make it a higher priority).\n\n However, we won't have enough good people who know the\n codebase and are capable of fixing existing bugs if they all\n go and work on \"other\" things.\n\n - Developers tend to notice _existing_ breakage more easily\n when given a chance to play with _existing_ code (either\n enhancing the existing code, or adding new call sites to the\n existing API). And one way to encourage playing with\n _existing_ code is to to encourage developing on top of it.\n\nIn earlier releases, I used to keep 'next' open during the\nfreeze. I think it had the effect of encouraging new things too\nmuch without having enough side-effect (from the point of view\nof a person who wants to do new things) of uncovering and fixing\nexisting issues (which is the primarily desired effect during\nthe stabilization).\n\nThis time I have been deliberately playing differently to strike\nthe balance a bit differently:\n \n - In order to discourage new things, I do not accept patches\n early.\n\n - In order not to discourage new things too much, I try to give\n brief feedback, and add them to \"What's not in 'master', and\n likely not to be until 1.5.4\".\n\nAnother practical reason I do not take patches early is because\nit is a time drain. Taking patches early means it will increase\nthe merge impact _before_ 1.5.4.\n\nNow that high level description out of the way, let's see what\nyou said:\n\n - Give more time to fix bugs before 1.5.4 is out without stopping\n people from having fun and reduce the pressure to release.\n\nThat is precisely what I want to discourage.\n\n - Reduce the merging impact when master reopens because patches are\n already merged in new_stuff and developers have already taken care of\n conflicts\n\nBogus.\n\nWhen two or more new things are outstanding, and if I take\npatches early, 'next' needs merge resolution. You are arguing\nto take my time away from what matters to 1.5.4 during the\nstabilization period, and instead encourage people to have fun\nand get distracted.\n\nPost 1.5.4 if one series contradicts/conflicts with another, I\ncan just say \"I have decided to take that series and your series\nconflicts with it. Please rebase\", to shift the burden to the\ncontributor of the second series. If I do that before 1.5.4,\nthat means I will not just encourage but actively ask the second\ncontributor not to work on uncovering and fixing existing issues\nbut spend time on new things.\n\nDo you think that helps the stabilization period in _any_ way?\n\n - Do not slow down the wheel: I can develop some patches and keep them\n myself, but until are not discussed in the list and eventually got in\n master has little meaning to continue develop additional stuff.\n\nThat's exactly the point of stabilization freeze. You can\ndevelop and keep developing. I have a few topics myself that\nare backburnered, and I occasionally visit them when I am bored.\nHowever, I try not to distract others with the series. Please\ntry to do the same.\n"},{"id":"66120","messageId":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"e5bfff550801200210y212d0921x214773596810be52@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Quim K Holland","fromEmail":"qkholland@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T11:15:45Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T11:15:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"qkholland@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"\"Marco Costalba\" wrote:\n\n Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n out.\n\n Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\n this pending stuff?\n\nBack when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was not this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were accepted every day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not been adding much useful code himself, did not join interesting discussions such as Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much useful comments on patches. He has mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and sending not so useful comments.\n\nCan we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n"},{"id":"66125","messageId":"86wsq3pg0q.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2008-01-21T11:36:05Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T11:36:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Quim K Holland writes:\n\n> \"Marco Costalba\" wrote:\n>\n>> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n>> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n>> out.\n>\n>> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\n>> this pending stuff?\n>\n> Back when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was not\n> this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were accepted\n> every day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not been adding\n> much useful code himself, did not join interesting discussions such as\n> Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much useful comments on\n> patches. He has mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and sending\n> not so useful comments.\n>\n> Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the\n> project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but\n> don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n\nAs far as I count as \"people\", I'd say you are plain nuts. And it is\nnot like I remember any useful contribution of yours, anyhow.\n\nIn my opinion, JH is doing a splendid job. You don't seem to have\nwatched it too closely, though. You are not even able to spell his\nname, and you obviously have no clue about the state of affairs anyway.\nIf you think you can do a better job, feel free to do so: since git is\ndeveloped using distributed version control, everybody can make his own\nforks and still continue sharing code and patches. We have this\nsituation with the Linux kernel (where we have Linus kernels, Morton\nkernels, Molnar kernels and so on), all quite amicably.\n\nA similar branching out is not really visible for git itself (apart from\nthe msys-git branch which is slated for eventual reintegration), and\nthat's exactly because Junio's work leaves so very little to be desired.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"66126","messageId":"4d8e3fd30801210338r220dbe16oa095cae087c180d@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Paolo Ciarrocchi","fromEmail":"paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T11:38:41Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T11:38:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Jan 21, 2008 12:15 PM, Quim K Holland wrote:\n> \"Marco Costalba\" wrote:\n>\n> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n> out.\n>\n> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\n> this pending stuff?\n>\n> Back when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was not this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were accepted every day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not been adding much useful code himself, did not join interesting discussions such as Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much useful comments on patches. He has mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and sending not so useful comments.\n>\n> Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n\nI'm strongly against your proposal, I think Junio is doing a _great_ work.\n\n\nCiao,\n-- \nPaolo\nhttp://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/\n"},{"id":"66127","messageId":"f7ccd24b0801210339q605357d3m99920639b832786b@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Juanma Barranquero","fromEmail":"lekktu@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T11:39:45Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T11:39:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lekktu@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/f125831a3413d11820fd7d62de71ccdf207793b61381e7b7d83d5a73fbf5e7ff?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Jan 21, 2008 12:15 PM, Quim K Holland wrote:\n\n\"stupid stability freeze\", \"not been adding much useful code himself\",\n\"not join interesting discussions\", \"nor gave much useful comments on\npatches\", \"mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and sending not\nso useful comments\"\n\n> I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano\n\nYou sure have a funny way to do so. If you do show disrespect someday\nI hope I'll be around to see it...\n\n Juanma\n"},{"id":"66128","messageId":"7vprvvxv4y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"86wsq3pg0q.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T11:42:21Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T11:42:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Please stop feeding a troll already.\n"},{"id":"66130","messageId":"7bfdc29a0801210347mfdac6f9h65e7cbc10a6cc71e@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"86wsq3pg0q.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Imran M Yousuf","fromEmail":"imyousuf@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T11:47:55Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T11:47:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"imyousuf@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/fda3c870262849d03c7b9c4d288842e128d6d80769fa7bc2d22731b7597928be?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Jan 21, 2008 5:36 PM, David Kastrup wrote:\n> Quim K Holland writes:\n>\n> > \"Marco Costalba\" wrote:\n> >\n> >> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n> >> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n> >> out.\n> >\n> >> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for\n> >> this pending stuff?\n> >\n> > Back when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was not\n> > this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were accepted\n> > every day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not been adding\n> > much useful code himself, did not join interesting discussions such as\n> > Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much useful comments on\n> > patches. He has mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and sending\n> > not so useful comments.\n\nI can personally give witness to Junio Hamano's discussion and\nextremely detailed discussion on patches I sent out and it is more\nelaborate than I would have given in reply. If he has not replied to\nany of your patch that is because he probably missed it, a resend or a\nreminder wont harm; we should all understand the workload involved\nwith a successful project as git.\n\n> >\n> > Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the\n> > project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but\n> > don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n>\n\nAt least get the name right next time. I hope Linus does not read it,\nbecause I cant imagine what he would reply :).\n\n> As far as I count as \"people\", I'd say you are plain nuts. And it is\n> not like I remember any useful contribution of yours, anyhow.\n>\n> In my opinion, JH is doing a splendid job. You don't seem to have\n> watched it too closely, though. You are not even able to spell his\n> name, and you obviously have no clue about the state of affairs anyway.\n> If you think you can do a better job, feel free to do so: since git is\n> developed using distributed version control, everybody can make his own\n> forks and still continue sharing code and patches. We have this\n> situation with the Linux kernel (where we have Linus kernels, Morton\n> kernels, Molnar kernels and so on), all quite amicably.\n\nI tend to agree with David, it is very easy and convenient to\ncriticise someone despite his brilliant work. if one feels that a\npatch will be extremely helpful for one, he/she can easily take and\nintegrate it with his/her own codebase install it and use it, in fact\nthats what I do as I have two installations of git.\n\n>\n> A similar branching out is not really visible for git itself (apart from\n> the msys-git branch which is slated for eventual reintegration), and\n> that's exactly because Junio's work leaves so very little to be desired.\n>\n> --\n> David Kastrup\n>\n>\n> -\n> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe git\" in\n> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html\n>\n\n\n\n-- \nImran M Yousuf\n"},{"id":"66135","messageId":"alpine.LSU.1.00.0801211225580.5731@racer.site","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2008-01-21T12:26:51Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T12:26:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Quim K Holland wrote:\n\n> Back when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was not \n> this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were accepted every \n> day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not been adding much \n> useful code himself, did not join interesting discussions such as \n> Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much useful comments on patches. \n> He has mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and sending not so \n> useful comments.\n> \n> Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the \n> project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but don't \n> people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n\n$ git log --all --author=Quim|wc\n 0 0 0\n\nCan I vote you off this list?\n\nI would call you \"idiot\" if that did not hurt _my_ karma,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"66139","messageId":"47949BBD.6060308@dawes.za.net","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Rogan Dawes","fromEmail":"lists@dawes.za.net","sentAt":"2008-01-21T13:18:53Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T13:18:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lists@dawes.za.net","avatar":null},"body":"Quim K Holland wrote:\n> \"Marco Costalba\" wrote:\n> \n> Reading mailing list threads it is becoming common these days to hear\n> about contributors with patches ready to be sent as soon as 1.5.4 is\n> out.\n> \n> Would be a good idea to open a new branch new_stuff as a target for \n> this pending stuff?\n> \n> Back when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was\n> not this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were\n> accepted every day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not been\n> adding much useful code himself, did not join interesting discussions\n> such as Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much useful comments\n> on patches. He has mostly been busy rejecting useful patches and\n> sending not so useful comments.\n> \n> Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the\n> project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but\n> don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n\nThat's Mr Hamano (one 'm'), and personally, I think that only when you \nhave contributed to this project yourself, would you have a leg to stand \non when you criticise him.\n\nAs an observer, I think that Junio is doing a superb job of managing the \nsometimes quite torrential flow of patches contributed to git. As Linus \nhimself has often said (Paraphrased, of course):\n\nThe role of the maintainer is often more to *reject* patches than to \naccept them, so as to maintain the quality of the code base.\n\nHaving said that, the amount of *constructive* criticism that \naccompanies those rejections is amazing. Often I have seen multiple \npages of response to a 2 line patch, so that the contributor (and other \nobservers) can better understand the reason for the rejection, and how \nto construct a better patch that would be accepted.\n\nRegards,\n\nRogan\n"},{"id":"66140","messageId":"e1dab3980801210612k3c0a52d1l8d868a2b49f4b558@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"47949BBD.6060308@dawes.za.net","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"David Tweed","fromEmail":"david.tweed@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T14:12:09Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T14:12:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"david.tweed@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"One other point no-one has mentioned: even if Junio were to be doing\nmore stabilisation than normal in a project (and I don't think he is),\nversion control software is one of those things like a filesystem\nwhere paying attention to stability is really important. Unlike a\nbuggy music player (say), a buggy git could destroy everything up to\nyour last backup.\n\nI appreciate all the work everyone in the community is currently doing\non stabilisation.\n\n-- \ncheers, dave tweed__________________________\ndavid.tweed@gmail.com\nRm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading.\n\"we had no idea that when we added templates we were adding a Turing-\ncomplete compile-time language.\" -- C++ standardisation committee\n"},{"id":"66158","messageId":"e5bfff550801211007h2f080ae2qbef0343d5877dc2a@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Marco Costalba","fromEmail":"mcostalba@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T18:07:34Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T18:07:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mcostalba@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Jan 21, 2008 12:15 PM, Quim K Holland wrote:\n> \"Marco Costalba\" wrote:\n>\n\n......cut a load of sh...t\n\n> Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n> -\n\nI'm really sorry you used my argumentations and trasform them in a\nfull load of bullshi..t.\n\nIf I had only imagined somthing like this I would never posted in first place.\n\nThe man you can't even write his name correctly is one of the best\nmaintainers we can have. And we' ve been very lucky for this.\n\nI can number a lot of reasons for this, but you really don't deserve it.\n\nIt's not a problem of how many patches you have posted, IMHO everyone\ncould express his ideas regardless of the weight of his contribute to\ngit.\n\nBut, also if you had posted thousand patches this don't give you the\nright to speak like this.\n\nMarco\n"},{"id":"66170","messageId":"m3odbfkn4s.fsf@roke.D-201","threadId":"11682","inReplyTo":"20070624192215@qkholland.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Time to flush Mr. Hammano?","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-01-21T19:13:55Z","receivedAt":"2008-01-21T19:13:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Quim K Holland writes:\n\n> Back when Mr. Torvalds was still leading the development there was\n> not this stupid stability freeze and many useful patches were\n> accepted every day. For the past few months Mr. Hammano has not\n> been adding much useful code himself, did not join interesting\n> discussions such as Unicode normalization issues, nor gave much\n> useful comments on patches. He has mostly been busy rejecting useful\n> patches and sending not so useful comments.\n> \n> Can we vote Mr. Hammano out and ask Mr. Torvalds to come back as the\n> project leader? I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Hammano, but\n> don't people think he outlived his usefulness as the project leader?\n\nFirst, Linus Torvalds passed maintaining git to Junio C Hamano because\nhe wanted to concentrate on Linux kernel; distributed version control\ntool is just the means to do that. I don't think Linus would want to\nbe back to maintaining git: it is a hard work.\n\nSecond, development and development speeds differ from the \"creating\"\npre-1.0 stage (for git when it was being written and then maintained\nby Linus), and the mature development / improvement stage (for git\nbeing maintained by Junio).\n\nThird, git is now in feature freeze before main release, so it is\nbetter that Junio concentrates on fixing bugs than on longish\ndiscussions or new features.\n\n\nLast, you don't follow netiquette: you don't know how to cite / quote\nproperly, you didn't word-wrap what you have wrote, you don't\ncontribute neither to discussion nor git code.\n\nHave a nice life... in killfile!\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"}]}