Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
...
quoted
The answer can
be a simple "nobody bothered to write them", and that's OK.
That can be derived from the word "add". You can't add something that
is already there.
You are correct to say that you cannot add something that is already
there, but that does not mean you explained why that new thing is a good
thing to add. In other words, you can add a new thing that we did not
have, but it would not result in a good addition if that new thing is
irrelevant. Relevance needs to be explained.
I do think in this particular case, the new check *is* relevant, because
Although we did have "blame" test to see how the name part is shown,
we had no "blame -e" test to see how the email part is shown.
I do not understand why you are resisting to explain how your addition
adds value to the system with such a simple two-liner, and instead are
endlessly arguing. Is it to make sure you are the one to utter the last
word in the thread?
As I am sort of getting tired of seeing you making things more difficult
for yourself, I'll refrain from commenting on this topic at least for a
few days to wait until things cool down.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
...
quoted
The answer can
be a simple "nobody bothered to write them", and that's OK.
That can be derived from the word "add". You can't add something that
is already there.
You are correct to say that you cannot add something that is already
there, but that does not mean you explained why that new thing is a good
thing to add. In other words, you can add a new thing that we did not
have, but it would not result in a good addition if that new thing is
irrelevant. Relevance needs to be explained.
I do think in this particular case, the new check *is* relevant, because
Although we did have "blame" test to see how the name part is shown,
we had no "blame -e" test to see how the email part is shown.
I do not understand why you are resisting to explain how your addition
adds value to the system with such a simple two-liner, and instead are
endlessly arguing. Is it to make sure you are the one to utter the last
word in the thread?
And I don't understand why people want the obvious to be explained.
For each one of the questions I've heard, the answer can be derived
from the summary *directly*.
Your new point is "you can add a new thing that we did not have, but
it would not result in a good addition if that new thing is
irrelevant", but you already know what is the new thing from the
summary "'git blame -e' tests".
Everybody seems to assume that a simple commit message = bad. I disagree.
As I am sort of getting tired of seeing you making things more difficult
for yourself,
The same argument can be applied both ways; you are the one that is
making things more difficult. And I already pointed out the double
standards.
I'll refrain from commenting on this topic at least for a
few days to wait until things cool down.
Does this mean that disagreement is discouraged? From the discussion
it seems we are in clear disagreement, but from the rhetoric it seems
to me that you all assume you are right by default, and that simple
commit messages are by bad definition.
If that's the case I am disappointed, but I would rather just drop the
discussion rather than defend my position.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras