From: Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:06:32 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2013, #05; Mon, 15)
Message-ID: <CABURp0riKhJ1p+06aKMCnBiupg3LyVCky5XRcPNLyaJDTkip9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3pZt3QVjS7GbXqjMS4ti3p=Vs2DmFXQjsMM3rs9qURmw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras

>>> If you want to waste your time, by all means, rewrite all my commit
>>> messages with essays that nobody will ever read. I'm not going to do
>>> that for some hypothetical case that will never happen. I'm not going
>>> to waste my time.
>>
>> This is not a hypothetical.  Almost every time I bisect a regression
>> in git.git, I find the commit message tells me exactly why the commit
>> did what it did and what the expected result was.  I find this to be
>> amazingly useful.  Do I need to show you real instances of that
>> happening? No.  I promise it did, though.
>
> Yes please. Show me one of the instances where you hit a bisect with
> any of the remote-hg commits mentioned above by Thomas Rast.

I made no such claim.  In fact, I have never bisected to any
remote-hg-related commit.  I fail to see the relevance of this
qualifier, though.

P