Re: git status always modifies index?

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2017, 20:49 UTC
Message-ID: <20171127204909.GA27469@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1711272142120.6482@virtualbox>

Hi,

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Jeff King wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>> [...] IMHO it argues for GfW trying to land patches upstream first, and
>> then having them trickle in as you merge upstream releases.
>
> You know that I tried that, and you know why I do not do that anymore: it
> simply takes too long, and the review on the list focuses on things I
> cannot focus on as much, I need to make sure that the patches *work*
> first, whereas the patch review on the Git mailing list tends to ensure
> that they have the proper form first.
>
> I upstream patches when I have time.

You have been developing in the open, so no complaints from me, just a second point of reference:

For Google's internal use we sometimes have needed a patch faster than upstream can review it. Our approach in those cases has been to send a patch to the mailing list and then apply it internally immediately. If upstream is stalled for months on review, so be it --- we already have the patch. But this tends to help ensure that we are moving in the same direction.

That said, I don't think that was the main issue with --no-optional-locks. I'll comment more on that in another subthread.

Thanks, Jonathan