Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 15, 2021, 10:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <60c87fc6a87ba_e6332084f@natae.notmuch>
- In-Reply-To
- <YMhx2BFlwUxZ2aFJ@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:19:46PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > My point is that if you are going to repost a patch that has known > > > problems, > > > > It was not known that it had problems. > > > > That fact that person X said patch Y had a problem doesn't necessarily > > mean that patch Y has a problem. > > > > 1. The problem in the past might not apply in the present > > 2. The problem X person had might be specific to his/her setup > > 3. The problem might be due a combination of patches, not the patch > > itself > > > > Plus many others. > > > > A logical person sees evidence for what it is, and the only thing that > > person X saying patch Y had a problem means, is that person X said patch > > Y had a problem. > > Wow. > > For one thing, you could still relay the _report_ of a problem along > with the patch, which would be valuable information for reviewers.
Yes I could have, and knowing what I know now I wouldn't even have even posted the patch (not without a proposed fix). Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
But that's not the point. The point is that I did not repost a patch with known problems *today*. Nor did I know what kind of problems, or how pervasive the issue was.
Presumably you had to try at least 2,500 merges to find *one* issue.
I ran all the tests for diff3 with zdiff3 and they passed without problems.
Merging this patch would have:
1. Not broken any tests
2. Not changed any behavior for any user
3. Not have caused any problem for the vast majority (> 99%) of
people trying out zdiff3So there was no carelessness here.
Moreover, I provied the patch at 9:30, at 10:42 you commented about the segfault, and 16:24 I had the fix. On a Sunday.
If this is not caring, I don't know what is.
-- Felipe Contreras