Re: [PATCH] config: Use parseopt.

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 14, 2009, 21:15 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902142213090.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <94a0d4530902141209j7a3a9976l80355bee526852ed@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> This is more a "I would like to increase the chances of my patches 
> >> being accepted so I'd do some chores to gain the trust of some 
> >> developers", and Johannes Schindelin was pushing me to do this.
> >>
> >> Also it's a bit of "I would like to improve git and learn the API 
> >> while doing so".
> >
> > I personally do not think "I rewrote this command's option parser 
> > using parseopt" earns any "trust point".  I think the latter is a 
> > *great* thing to do, though.
> 
> I disagree. Making a patch pass through all the filters must mean 
> something, and the more patches the more trust.

Maybe I should point out something that is obvious to somebody who followed the Git list for a long time: there are two areas of the code that had such a track record of regressions that Junio grew a distaste for them: git-config and parse options.

However, I imagine if you manage to provide a patch that touches both areas _and_ that are without flaws, then you get some brownie points :-)

Ciao, Dscho