Re: [PATCH 1/9] remote-bzr: trivial cleanups

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2013, 18:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1MHUc_jw5EQviSYWc9phWCYD-FK_gRA-0QYNcLix098w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0ndinJPeufokYUiPeC_Hs=9WA71Xpd=K6vimJseXJsAOA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Any sensible reviewer would be context aware, notice that this
>> is a contrib patch, and focus on behavioral changes, notice the
>> mistake I made, and point that *one* of the changes was changing the
>> behavior, at which point I would agree and reroll either without that
>> change, or with the change in a separate commit (which I don't want to
>> do right now). The maintainer (you), wouldn't even have to reply at
>> all.
>
> Personally, I think it is the job of the submitter to provide a really
> helpful commit message and widen his review audience.  If I'm hitting
> the git mailing list with my patches, I try to make sure that nearly
> everyone on the list can understand what I've done and potentially
> review it.  Why else would I want to hit their inboxes with my
> patches?

If you don't understand the reasoning and history behind remote-bzr, you might be doing a disservice to everyone by commenting at all.

Bazaar is a dead project, and there are *real* users suffering as we speak, bound to eternal SCM torment by evil dictators and political non-speak. Even the worst of remote-bzr patches are a thousand times better than what you see in bzr code itself.

To give you some perspective, one commit broke a branch in the emacs project, and ever since then people are not able to clone that branch. This bug has been known for years, and nobody fixes it. Every time anybody tries to clone that branch, they need a special sequence of commands.

They *need* something like remote-bzr to escape the horrendities of bzr, and all you are doing complaining about a sneaked fix is a disservice to everyone. Yes, doing such a thing on git.c would not be particularly great, but wouldn't be horrific either, fortunately we are not doing that!

Answer me, do you use bzr? No? Do you use remote-bzr? No? Then how in hell could you possibly have any contextual information to make even a guess as to what would be the impact of sneaking such a small fix? You can't.

But why are we even speaking about this nonsense? This patch has been dropped. You want to review something, go review PATCH v2 1/9. Stop arguing about stubbornness and hypotheticals, when there's actual code to review.

What is your objective, do you want to help this project move forward or not?

-- 
Felipe Contreras