Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Rewrite packfile reuse code

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 9, 2019, 06:18 UTC
Message-ID: <20191209061853.GA38588@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1912080942360.31080@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 09:54:01AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> > That's why I put Peff as the author of the patches.
> 
> No, that is not the reason. You might think that that is the reason, but
> the real reason why Peff is marked as the author of those patches is that
> he really authored those patches.
> 
> In light of what you said, I don't think that it is a good idea to go
> forward by leaning even further on Peff. From his activity on the Git
> mailing list, I deduce that he is not exactly in need of even more work.
> 
> Instead, I think that if you truly want to push these patches forward, you
> will have to dig deeper yourself, and answer Jonathan Tan's questions, and
> possibly adjust the patches accordingly and send a new iteration.
> 
> I perceive it as very unfair toward Peff that this has not yet happened.

To be clear, I am not bothered by this. And in fact I feel bad that I promised Christian that I take a careful look at the patches again, but haven't gotten around to it (for an embarrassingly long time now).

Now I would _love_ if somebody else dug into the topic enough to understand all of the ins and outs, and whether what they're doing is sane (or could be done better). But barring that, these patches have been battle-tested for many years on GitHub's servers, so even if we just take them as-is I hope it would be an improvement.

Fortunately I have some other work to do that I would like very much to procrastinate on, so let me see if that can summon the willpower for me to review these.

> Well, you have time enough to send lengthy replies on a Sunday morning
> (while Peff apparently did not even have time to say that he lacks the
> time to work on this).

One tricky thing here is that I leave messages or subthreads that I intend to act on in my incoming Git mbox. And of course as time goes on, those get pushed further back in the pile. But when new messages arrive, mutt attaches them to the old threads, and I sometimes don't see them (until I go back and sift through the pile).

I wish there was a good way to have mutt remain in threaded mode, but sort the threads by recent activity. Setting sort_aux=last-date kind of works, but last time I tried it, I got annoyed that it did funny things with the order of patches within a thread (if somebody replies to patch 3/5, and then 2/5, it will pull 3/5 down as "more recent").

Dscho, you may feel free to roll your eyes and mutter under your breath about email if you wish. ;)

-Peff