Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2014, 16:14 UTC
Message-ID: <20140425161443.GE11479@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <871twl9z8h.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>

David Kastrup wrote:

> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

>> I probably missed a subtlety, but the above comment reminded me of
>> some netiquette I think this list is starting to forget.  If I have
>> misread it, please let me know and skip the rest of this message.

[...]

>> On the git list, the rule is simple.  Feel free to grumble, but make
>> sure there is some contribution in the same message.

[...]

> Uh, Javier was commenting on a number of concrete proposals regarding
> the subject line "What is missing from Git v2.0" and quoted Felipe
> directly.  As you seem to have lost the context, let me requote the
> respective portion:

I hadn't lost the context, but thanks for a pointer.

[...]

>     = Reject non-fast-forward pulls by default =

[...]

Show 9 quoted lines

>     The patches were sent, the issues were addressed, people agreed, and
>     yet nothing happened.
>
>     [3][4]
>
>     [...]
>
>     [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/240030
>     [4] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/235981

Unfortunately Felipe's summary is incomplete.

My message was meant as something that could be made into a reference for when similar questions of netiquette come up in the future (as for example they do all the time with Felipe). That meant I didn't give as good advice for your particular case than I should have.

For this particular case, my thoughts are:

If you believe those patches should be applied, please re-send them with a summary of changes you've made (if any) and your opinion on any unaddressed comments from the review thread.

If you believe those patches should not be applied, wouldn't it be better to reply to that thread to help in case someone wants to pick up the patches and fix them?

On the other hand if you just want to blow off steam, I guess that's fine too. Just don't expect it to result in any patches being applied, code quality improving, etc.

Jonathan