Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2019, #03; Fri, 11)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2019, 23:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwodag7rd.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BF346QbjCyWP7HSP9Lh7mDRgtwtPC8b4mqNv4znUHoGFw@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> Did I shoot myself in the foot by being quick to jump on Rene's couple
> of cosmetic touch-up suggestions he posted over a week after the
> series was originally posted?

If the suggested updates were simple enough to do and would improve the result sufficiently (which is probably true in this case), it is possible that the topic would have been marked "Expecting a reroll" and stayed out of 'next' longer. Or I may have missed the suggested updates before merging the known-incomplete series to 'next', and the topic may have got marked "Expecting a follow-up" and stayed in that state until the update happened. Or I may have simply missed the suggestion and allowed you to successfully game the system. So you have 2/3 chance of delaying the topic's graduation by doing so ;-).

But over time in the longer run, those contributors who prioritize quality over haste are rewarded with more trust (which results in shorter gestation period for their topics in both 'pu' and 'next'), while those contributors with tendency to sneakily gaming the system eventually get caught and their contribution has to be looked at with finer toothed comb than usual, making more work on everybody and delaying the whole thing, including but not limited to their topics.

At least, that is how the system hopefully works.

By the way, I think I made a mistake in my calendar math.

This topic was merged to 'next' on the 7th and it is not especially tricky; unless I (or somebody else) find glaring issues in it during the final sanity check before merging it to 'master' during the next batch, it would take the normal course to 'master' before the 18th, on which the rc0 is planned.