Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again
Hi Junio,
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > If you care deeply about the commit history, I hereby offer to you to
> > clean up the built-in stash patches when you say you're ready to advance
> > them to `master`.
>
> What's the goal of such a rebase?
To appease you enough that you stop complaining about the current, or previous, state of `ps/stash-in-c`.
I am genuinely interested in making this all more pleasant for you, even if my efforts to that end show no fruit.
Show 6 quoted lines
> To rebuild the topic as a sensible sequence of commits that logically
> builds on top of previous steps to ease later bisection and
> understanding?
>
> Thanks for an offer out of good intentions,, but let's move on and
> polish the tree shape at the tip of this topic.
I would be prepared to do that, but I am constantly reminded of the unfortunate way we handled `ps/stash-in-c`, where you thought it was way too early to move to `next`, and I am convinced that we simply were way too late to start cooking in `next`.
So I keep offering to do work so that you would be happier, but none of my suggestions seem to work.
> The history behind it may be messier than other segments of our history,
> and future developers may have harder time learning the intention of the
> topic when making changes on top, but this one was supposed to create a
> bug-to-bug reimplementation of the scripted version.
Right. But we moved right past that, and continued enhancing `git stash`, (like the `--quiet` thing) and were now stuck with the unfortunate situation that we had to do it in both built-in and scripted version.
Show 19 quoted lines
> What matters more would be our future changes on top of this code, which
> improves what we used to have as scripted Porcelain. They will
> genuinely be novel efforts, need to be built in logical order and
> explainable steps to help future developers. Compared to that, so the
> history of our stumbling along the way to reach today's tip of the topic
> has much lower value.
>
> Besides I think it is way too late for the current topic. We
> established before the topic hit 'next' that reviewers' eyes all
> lost freshness and patience to review another round of this series
> adequately.
>
> We at least know that the ordering and organization of the iteration
> we see in 'next' is crappy, because some reviewers did look at them.
> The rewrite will see no reviews, if any, far fewer and shallower
> reviews than the iteration we have; nobody would be able to say with
> confidence that the rewritten series achieves its goal of leaving a
> sensible history. Doing so just before it hits 'master' makes it a
> sure thing.
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.
> Let's just we all admit that we did a poor job when we decided to
> push this topic to 'next' before it was ready, and learn the lesson
> to avoid haste making waste for the future topics.
Quite honestly, I am at a loss what you are suggesting here. The original contributor (Paul) got unexpectedly busy with university, so he was not able to take care of any updates.
I would have made those updates (I promised, after all), but at some stage it felt more logical to explain in add-on topics what breakages were introduced by the built-in rewrite and fix them: squashing the fixes in would have made it less obvious why certain changes had to be done that way (after all, I missed in the original dozens of reviews, pre-submission and post-submission, e.g. the ORIG_HEAD problems).
But you did not complain about me adding on top back then, so I do not understand why you complain about it now...
I am more than willing to move on, but if we keep repeating how messy the current state is and do not even come up with a way how we could handle this better in the future, then I do not really feel that we *are* moving on after all.
Ciao, Dscho
> Thanks.
>
Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
