Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 29, 2014, 08:28 UTC
Message-ID: <535f62c1e740a_45e485b30887@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <220967ee-98a9-4731-88c0-43a9cba7220a@email.android.com>

James Denholm wrote:

> You cannot expect that anybody but yourself is willing to propose,
> debate the merits of and otherwise defend patches that you have
> authored (herein "your patches", implying authorship, not
> ownership).

This is the original comment:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> > It becomes easier to actually change things when communicating in
> > a less abrasive and destructive manner.

Which is demonstrably false, as I already explained nobody else could get these patches in, regarldless of the abrasiveness, or lack thereof.

My point was that my abrasiveness is not an excuse not to do the changes, as somebody else could get them in (or a similar proposal). But they couldn't, because it's a change.

Your point about me not expecting somebody else to defend my patches is irrelevant; it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, and it's not relevant in general either.

I didn't ask or expect anybody to defend my patches, my point was that David Kastrup was wrong; it wouldn't be easier to change things; because change is simply not welcome.

> Ultimately, the only person who can ensure that a patch is
> championed, and the only person who need feel a responsibility to,
> is the author, and that responsibility is only ever to themselves.

Contributors don't have any responsibility to champion their patches. It is pro bono work.

I should champion my patches because I want to improve Git, not because I have a responsibility. And nobody else has any responsibility either, but if somebody else want to improve Git as well, they should chamption the patches (or others of their own) as well.

In the meantime the problem still remains.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > It doesn't matter if you want to go hunting and I want to buy
> > bread, either one of those is better than starving to death.
> 
> Not at all. Hunting may necessitate a negative side effect, such as
> betraying vegetarianism,  having to go out into the jungle for five
> days,  risk life and limb,  and (worse yet) sleep in a tent. This is
> an especially poor decision if we honestly would prefer a loaf of
> bread, and we just need to find a way across the street.

You obviously didn't read what I said.

> And again, I'm referring to the general case here, but of your
> views of what the solution should be clash with what the
> community view is, you're not going to be able to convince
> the community to go hunting.

I'm not going to convince them to buy bread either.

The community wants to starve to death, and you couldn't convince them otherwise either.

-- 
Felipe Contreras