Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2019, 04:39 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8sxc6bjt.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1903111714430.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> To appease you enough that you stop complaining about the current, or
> previous, state of `ps/stash-in-c`.
> ...

First of all, you do not have to appease me. What happened in the past has happened already, and whether I complain or not, the fact that the history we came up with before pushing the topic to 'next' was suboptimal. Nothing short of kicking it out of 'next' and redoing as if it were a fresh topic would fix that, but we all agreed that it is not the best way to spend our developer and reviewer resources.

> Fine. But in that case, I would appreciate not being reminded of the
> messiness. Not unless you let me do something about it. Don't put me
> between a rock and a hard place, please.

You had been given plenty of chance to do something about it after you added "oh, it was wrong not to have a legacy fallback, and here is a patch on the top". This is not the time to revisit the issue.

Gagging me won't change the fact that the history we ended up is messy. Without getting reminded of our past mistake(s) ourselves, what else encourages us to do better the next time?

The lesson I personally learned is that yielding to the wish to hastily push things that are not ready to 'next' will leave us mess. I hope the lesson submitters and mentors have learned is not that by bombarding reviewers with too many iterations that do not address an issue, a topic can be pushed through with the issue unresolved with reviewer fatigue.