Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 15, 2021, 09:24 UTC
Message-ID: <YMhx2BFlwUxZ2aFJ@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <60c82a622ae66_e5292087f@natae.notmuch>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:19:46PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> > My point is that if you are going to repost a patch that has known
> > problems,
> 
> It was not known that it had problems.
> 
> That fact that person X said patch Y had a problem doesn't necessarily
> mean that patch Y has a problem.
> 
>   1. The problem in the past might not apply in the present
>   2. The problem X person had might be specific to his/her setup
>   3. The problem might be due a combination of patches, not the patch
>      itself
> 
> Plus many others.
> 
> A logical person sees evidence for what it is, and the only thing that
> person X saying patch Y had a problem means, is that person X said patch
> Y had a problem.

Wow.

For one thing, you could still relay the _report_ of a problem along with the patch, which would be valuable information for reviewers.

But much more important, in my opinion: that you would dismiss without further investigation a report of a bug from the one person who actually had experience running with the patch implies a level of carelessness that I'm not comfortable with for the project.

I had already given up on having substantive discussion with you, but I had hoped I could help the project by pointing out relevant facts in areas that you were working in. But if a simple statement like "this segfaulted for me" is not even useful, then I don't see much point in communicating with you at all.

-Peff