Re: Nesting topics within other threads (was: [PATCH] repo-settings.c: simplify the setup)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: May 5, 2021, 16:12 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2105051808190.50@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <87eeeuymtl.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Hi Ævar,

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Wed, Apr 28 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
> > On 4/28/2021 12:26 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> Simplify the setup code in repo-settings.c in various ways, making the
> >> code shorter, easier to read, and requiring fewer hacks to do the same
> >> thing as it did before:
> >
> > [...]
> > Since I've committed to reviewing the FS Monitor code, I'd prefer if
> > this patch (or maybe its v2, since this is here already) be sent as
> > a top-level message so it can be discussed independently.
>
> As a practical matter I think any effort I make to accommodate your
> request will be dwarfed by your own starting of a sub-thread on
> E-Mail/MUA nuances :)
>
> When [1] was brought up the other day (showing that I'm probably not the
> best person to ask about on-list In-Reply-To semantics) I was surprised
> to find that we don't have much (if any) explicit documentation about
> In-Reply-To best practices. [...]
>
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2103191540330.57@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/

I find it a bit disingenous to reference my complaint about your disconnected cover letter (which _definitely_ belongs with the patches for which it covers) with the practice of hiding patches or patch series deep in a thread discussion an (lengthy!) patch series, _especially_ if it threatens to totally conflict with that patch series and thereby disrupt the flow.

Couldn't you hold off with your patch for a while, instead help FSMonitor get over the finish line, and _then_ submit that simplification of repo-settings? That would be constructive, from my perspective.

Ciao, Dscho