Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 12, 2014, 20:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqzjimpw7x.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <53712cd889ba9_2ea6e1f2f82f@nysa.notmuch>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> I was originally led to believe that its code quality was good >> enough, and that was why I merged the bottom three patches of the >> series even down to 'next' in the first place. But after seeing the >> "Of course" response that led to [*1*], which made me recall many >> patch-review interactions with him, I have started to have doubts. > > This is bullshit, and a wrong direction fallacy. > > Event #1: > Junio rejects the graduation > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248263 > > Event #2: > I give up improving remote helpers in git.git > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248063/focus=248341 > > Junio is trying to make you believe that his decision (#1) was caused by > something I did (#2). Don't fall into that trap, #2 happened *AFTER* #1, > it can't possibly be the cause.
I think you misunderstood.
I never said that I do not want it to graduate up (out is an option) based on code quality. In fact, I do not think anybody discussed about code quality until this morning.
But because I was asked, I thought about it, and then answered honestly. I do not know what a trap you perceive is about, and I am not interested in your responses.