Re: [PATCH v2 resend] gitk: Use an external icon file on Windows

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 9, 2012, 15:54 UTC
Message-ID: <7vmx24oybg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHGBnuOKsPJoRADfukCJ8abSVVKUy5vbuh18S7UD8rLScVq=GQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Forwarding a misdirected patch to the maintainer who is free to pick
>> or ignore.
>
> How am I supposed to know if a patch has been ignored as an oversight
> (in which case I would resend), or because the maintainer decided not
> to include it (in which case I would not resend in order to not annoy
> the maintainer)?

By hearing from Paul (or asking directly), perhaps?

Show 6 quoted lines

>> Personally I am negative on it (nobody on the list asked for the
>> "new" Git icon as far as I recall), but my voice on this counts just
>> as little as others.
>
> I guess most patches on the list come in unasked, so I cannot follow
> your negative attitude because of this.

Many patches do come after a thread of discussion, and at the end of such a discussion I do not often explicitly ask "yeah, that sounds like a good way to go, please make it so", so technically it is correct that many patches come unasked, but my "nobody asked for" was not about your patch. It was about the "new logo".

  Cf. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/197082

The site may be called "official", but Scott exercises fairly large amount of editorial discretion without community input on occasions, and because he is such a nice guy, we let some questionable things go from time to time. Some things on that site are not always the community concensus, not necessarily in the sense that Scott decided against community concensus but in the sense that the community did not feel a need to even have a concensus and Scott chose to go one way. The new logo is one of these things. Some in the community may not be enthusiastic about it and prefer the original, but they do not feel strongly enough to send in patches and gather the community support to "fix" it.

And that goes both ways. If the logo of the "official" site is not something so important that git-scm.com can change without gaining community consensus first, then it equally is within the editorial discretion of individual git package's maintainer to keep using the original not the updated logo.