Re: [PATCH] Re: Teach mailinfo to ignore everything before -- >8 -- mark

Nanako Shiraishi [off-list ref] writes:

Quoting Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]

quoted

What I meant was that I would not want to spend any more of _my_ time on
the definition of the scissors for now.  That means spending or wasting
time on improving the 'pu' patch myself, or looking at others patch to
find flaws in them.

Of course, as the maintainer, I would need to look at proposals to improve
or fix bugs in the code before the series hits the master, but I would
give zero priority to the patches that change the definition at least for
now to give myself time to work on more useful things.

I am hoping that you didn't mean to say that other people on the list
mustn't look at such patches and help improve them either?

Perhaps you can rephrase your message in a more positive way, just like
you request other people to do in their proposed commit log messages?

Ok, I agree that the way I worded the message was suboptimal, so let's try
again.

I would appreciate if the members of the list come up with an alternative
definition with a good implementation that they can agree on, and present
the result as a list consensus, with a solid justification to replace the
crap I have queued in 'pu', in the form of an applicable patch.  Because I
consider that the exact definition of what a scissors line looks like is
an insignificant detail, I would prefer to see that process happen without
involving me.

By the way, I already queued your documentation patch, as adding the part
that describes what a "scissors" line is good for is a very good idea.
The "community" patch to replace the definition of scissors line may have
to update the part that describes what a "scissors" line looks like in
your patch.