Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2012, #03; Wed, 12)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2012, 19:31 UTC
Message-ID: <7vmwxhycii.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3uyC0V6ycTv78mG36_i7ugMLwwNk2cqNZatEJuL7Ee1w@mail.gmail.com>

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

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>>  New remote helper for bzr (v3).  With minor fixes, this may be ready
>>>>  for 'next'.
>>>
>>> What minor fixes?
>>
>> Lookng at the above (fixup), $gmane/210744 comes to mind
>
> That doesn't matter. The code and the tests would work just fine.

One of us must be very confused. Perhaps you were looking at a wrong message (or I quoted a wrong one?).

  ... goes and double checks ...

One of the review points were about this piece in the test:

    > +cmd=<<EOF
    > +import bzrlib
    > +bzrlib.initialize()
    > +import bzrlib.plugin
    > +bzrlib.plugin.load_plugins()
    > +import bzrlib.plugins.fastimport
    > +EOF
    > +if ! "$PYTHON_PATH" -c "$cmd"; then

    I cannot see how this could have ever worked.

And I still don't see how your "would work just fine" can be true.

>> but there may be others.  It is the responsibility of a contributor to keep
>> track of review comments others give to his or her patches and
>> reroll them, so I do not recall every minor details, sorry.

There may be others, but $gmane/210745 is also relevant, I think.

> There is nothing that prevents remote-bzr from being merged.

What we merge may not be perfect. Bugs and misdesigns are often identified long after a topic is merged and it is perfectly normal we fix things up in-tree. There are even times where we say "OK, it is known to break if the user does something that pokes this and that obscure corners of this code, but the benefit of merging this 99% working code to help users that do not exercise the rare cases is greater than having them wait for getting the remaining 1% right, so let's merge it with known breakage documentation".

But it is totally a different matter to merge a crap with known breakage that is one easy fix away from the get-go. Allowing that means that all the times we spend on reviewing patches here go wasted, discouraging reviewers.

If you want others to take your patches with respect, please take reviewers' comments with the same respect you expect to be paid by others.