Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Rewrite packfile reuse code

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Dec 9, 2019, 09:28 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1912091023040.31080@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <20191209061853.GA38588@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi Peff,

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019, Jeff King wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 09:54:01AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > That's why I put Peff as the author of the patches.
> >
> > No, that is not the reason. You might think that that is the reason, but
> > the real reason why Peff is marked as the author of those patches is that
> > he really authored those patches.
> >
> > In light of what you said, I don't think that it is a good idea to go
> > forward by leaning even further on Peff. From his activity on the Git
> > mailing list, I deduce that he is not exactly in need of even more work.
> >
> > Instead, I think that if you truly want to push these patches forward, you
> > will have to dig deeper yourself, and answer Jonathan Tan's questions, and
> > possibly adjust the patches accordingly and send a new iteration.
> >
> > I perceive it as very unfair toward Peff that this has not yet happened.
>
> To be clear, I am not bothered by this. And in fact I feel bad that I
> promised Christian that I take a careful look at the patches again, but
> haven't gotten around to it (for an embarrassingly long time now).
>
> Now I would _love_ if somebody else dug into the topic enough to
> understand all of the ins and outs, and whether what they're doing is
> sane (or could be done better).

That's what I thought.

When I bring patches to the Git mailing list, it means implicitly not only that I understand the ins and outs of them, but also that I am fully prepared to address reviewer comments and send out new, enhanced iterations.

That holds when I send patch series that include patches authored by someone else than me. I thought that that is kind of expected, otherwise there would be no good reason for _me_ to send those patches, right?

Show 7 quoted lines

> But barring that, these patches have been battle-tested for many years
> on GitHub's servers, so even if we just take them as-is I hope it would
> be an improvement.
>
> Fortunately I have some other work to do that I would like very much to
> procrastinate on, so let me see if that can summon the willpower for me
> to review these.

Heh, I know that feeling.

Show 15 quoted lines

> > Well, you have time enough to send lengthy replies on a Sunday morning
> > (while Peff apparently did not even have time to say that he lacks the
> > time to work on this).
>
> One tricky thing here is that I leave messages or subthreads that I
> intend to act on in my incoming Git mbox. And of course as time goes on,
> those get pushed further back in the pile. But when new messages arrive,
> mutt attaches them to the old threads, and I sometimes don't see them
> (until I go back and sift through the pile).
>
> I wish there was a good way to have mutt remain in threaded mode, but
> sort the threads by recent activity. Setting sort_aux=last-date kind of
> works, but last time I tried it, I got annoyed that it did funny things
> with the order of patches within a thread (if somebody replies to patch
> 3/5, and then 2/5, it will pull 3/5 down as "more recent").

When I hit such a situation, I usually go on this kind of insane side-track to figure out whether it would be easy to fix this (it's open source, after all). Last time I tried such a thing, though, I had to admit that it was not easy (but I use Alpine, not mutt, out of sheer inability to adjust my muscle memory).

> Dscho, you may feel free to roll your eyes and mutter under your breath
> about email if you wish. ;)

Done.

;-)

Ciao, Dscho