Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 14, 2014, 22:24 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq61l8hubw.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <87mweku2pt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Philippe Vaucher <philippe.vaucher@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Thanks for the explanation. I think it underlines well the A)
>> technical issues (quality commits) and the B) social issues (ability
>> to communicate in a friendly way & respond constructively), which we
>> discovered are both *essential* for contributing to git.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced of that: there is something akin to drop-dead
> gorgeous code: code that is so well done that it would not matter with
> regard to its maintenance whether or not its author dropped dead because
> it's both done well as well as documented in a manner where the original
> author could not offer significant additional help.

I would have to say that you are living in a fantasy land. During the entire life of Git, I do not think I ever saw such a code that is perfect from the get-go and did not require any maintenance to adjust to the changing time.