From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:18:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] test: tests for the "double > from mailmap" bug Message-ID: <7v8vk55a99.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Felipe Contreras writes: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Jeff King 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.