Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 7, 2017, 21:36 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwp6fnjpg.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1708072307410.4271@virtualbox>

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

Show 9 quoted lines

> So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu`
> for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before
> even considering it for `pu`?
>
> Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned
> long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the
> rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for
> it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too
> freely and too deliberately.

This is not about where the bar is set. It is about expectation. I do not expect much from occasional (or new) contributors and I try not to demand too much from them. The consequence is that as long as a small patch makes things better without making anything worse, I'd want to be inclusive to encourage them to build obvious improvements on top. Maybe they just want a single patch landed to fix their immediate needs (which may be generic enough and expected to be shared with many other people) without going further, so I may end up queuing something that only helps 40% of people until follow up patches are done to cover the remaining 60% of people, but that is fine as long as the patch does not make things worse (it is not like a patch that helps 40% while hurting the remaining 60% until a follow-up happens).

I would expect a lot more from experienced contributors, when I know they are capable of helping the remaining 60% inside the same series and without requiring too much hand-holding from me. The same thing I cannot say to a occasional (or new) contributor---they may not be coorperative, or they may be willing to do more but may require more help polishing their work than the bandwidth I can afford.

So if you are volunteering to help by either guiding Martin to aim higher and make this a series with a larger and more complete scope, I'd very much appreciate it. Or you can do a follow-up series on top of what Martin posted. Either is fine by me. Just do not step on each others' toes ;-)

I avoided saying all of the above because I didn't want my word taken out of context later to make it sound as if I were belittling the competence of Martin, but you seem to want to force me to say this, so here it is.