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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2012, 22:34 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0cJroUM2aahRQz2dVPe57XPPOnsxWy+5DfmjXGArz4wA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v8vk55a99.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

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

And I don't understand why people want the obvious to be explained. For each one of the questions I've heard, the answer can be derived from the summary *directly*.

Your new point is "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", but you already know what is the new thing from the summary "'git blame -e' tests".

Everybody seems to assume that a simple commit message = bad. I disagree.

> As I am sort of getting tired of seeing you making things more difficult
> for yourself,

The same argument can be applied both ways; you are the one that is making things more difficult. And I already pointed out the double standards.

> I'll refrain from commenting on this topic at least for a
> few days to wait until things cool down.

Does this mean that disagreement is discouraged? From the discussion it seems we are in clear disagreement, but from the rhetoric it seems to me that you all assume you are right by default, and that simple commit messages are by bad definition.

If that's the case I am disappointed, but I would rather just drop the discussion rather than defend my position.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras