Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] test: tests for the "double > from mailmap" bug

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2012, 22:18 UTC
Message-ID: <7v8vk55a99.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0Dp9Av+ikFHa=QcqKFA5XL9ESBrzWLY0jkSCdH-NxhMw@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> ...
>>     The answer can
>>     be a simple "nobody bothered to write them", and that's OK.
>
>  That can be derived from the word "add". You can't add something that
> is already there.

You are correct to say that you cannot add something that is already there, but that does not mean you explained why that new thing is a good thing to add. In other words, you can add a new thing that we did not have, but it would not result in a good addition if that new thing is irrelevant. Relevance needs to be explained.

I do think in this particular case, the new check *is* relevant, because

    Although we did have "blame" test to see how the name part is shown,
    we had no "blame -e" test to see how the email part is shown.

I do not understand why you are resisting to explain how your addition adds value to the system with such a simple two-liner, and instead are endlessly arguing. Is it to make sure you are the one to utter the last word in the thread?

As I am sort of getting tired of seeing you making things more difficult for yourself, I'll refrain from commenting on this topic at least for a few days to wait until things cool down.