Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2013, 16:53 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1x4Dm2KwyuN=oisSFdoCPxYzu+ZjZjHN45_=i7b=z0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v8v2il62c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One example of killing the entire thread is when I see "This patch
>>> will not be applied" by Felipe in a thread started with his patch.
>>> I understand that it is his way to say "this patch is retracted"
>>> without having to explicitly say that he now understands that
>>> reviews showed why the patch was wrong or that he thanks the
>>> reviewer for enlightening him.
>>
>> You are wrong. There's nothing wrong with the patch.
>> ...
>> I thought you understood that code should speak, but apparently you don't.
>
> That is exactly the point Peff raised (and I agreed with), isn't it?
>
> Bad behaviour (being difficult to work with) has consequences.

It is not bad behavior. It is bad behavior *in your opinion*, an opinion that wouldn't be shared by other projects, like the Linux kernel.

Show 6 quoted lines

> E.g.
> convincing people that it is not worth their time interacting with
> you, especially when there are better things to do like tending to
> other topics, and you lose the chance to show that your patches are
> good when they indeed are (I don't even know if these patches in
> question are good, and I am not going to find out).

You are hurting the Git project by doing that, and our users, specially our Windows users.

I thought you were a good maintainer. But apparently you would rather listen to the people that only complain, rather than actual code, that actually improves things.

-- 
Felipe Contreras