Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2009, #07; Wed, 28)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 12, 2009, 12:32 UTC
Message-ID: <20090212123207.GA5397@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v3aekqhpo.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:42:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> We seem to have acquired a bad habit of discussing and agreeing on a
> potential improvement and then not following through, forgetting it
> altogether.
> 
> Exciting new features we can count on original submitters to stick to them
> and push them forward whether we go into a release freeze, but the more
> boring kind of patches that we already know what we want to see by the
> next release are actually the more important to the overall project;
> sadly, they tend to get lost somewhere in the crack.  I wonder if we can
> do anything about it.

I used to be more diligent about making a note of such things in my todo list and then actually trying to reduce the size of that todo list occasionally. But my git time has shrunk a bit lately due to my day job, and I have been spending more time reviewing patches and discussing ideas on the list, so it has been a while since I have actually sat down to check something off of my todo.

I think in this case it was a matter of "it didn't make it onto anybody's todo list". So I think it is nice that you put together the patch; but I also think a gentle nudge of "so is anybody going to do this?" would have worked, since it gives another chance for people to claim ownership.

> And no, a bug tracker is not the answer, even though it could be a (small)
> part of the solution.

Maybe it would be sufficient to simply keep a public record of intent-to-work on certain topics. Usually it is obvious from the mail exchange what is going to happen next, but sometimes (as I think in this case) it is left somewhat ambiguous.

> -- >8 --
> Subject: Install the default "master" branch configuration after cloning a void

The patch looks good to me.

-Peff