Re: [PATCH v2 resend] gitk: Use an external icon file on Windows

Sebastian Schuberth [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Forwarding a misdirected patch to the maintainer who is free to pick
or ignore.

How am I supposed to know if a patch has been ignored as an oversight
(in which case I would resend), or because the maintainer decided not
to include it (in which case I would not resend in order to not annoy
the maintainer)?

By hearing from Paul (or asking directly), perhaps?

quoted

Personally I am negative on it (nobody on the list asked for the
"new" Git icon as far as I recall), but my voice on this counts just
as little as others.

I guess most patches on the list come in unasked, so I cannot follow
your negative attitude because of this.

Many patches do come after a thread of discussion, and at the end of
such a discussion I do not often explicitly ask "yeah, that sounds
like a good way to go, please make it so", so technically it is
correct that many patches come unasked, but my "nobody asked for"
was not about your patch.  It was about the "new logo".

  Cf. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/197082

The site may be called "official", but Scott exercises fairly large
amount of editorial discretion without community input on occasions,
and because he is such a nice guy, we let some questionable things
go from time to time.  Some things on that site are not always the
community concensus, not necessarily in the sense that Scott decided
against community concensus but in the sense that the community did
not feel a need to even have a concensus and Scott chose to go one
way.  The new logo is one of these things.  Some in the community
may not be enthusiastic about it and prefer the original, but they
do not feel strongly enough to send in patches and gather the
community support to "fix" it.

And that goes both ways.  If the logo of the "official" site is not
something so important that git-scm.com can change without gaining
community consensus first, then it equally is within the editorial
discretion of individual git package's maintainer to keep using the
original not the updated logo.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Forwarding a misdirected patch to the maintainer who is free to pick
or ignore.

How am I supposed to know if a patch has been ignored as an oversight
(in which case I would resend), or because the maintainer decided not
to include it (in which case I would not resend in order to not annoy
the maintainer)?

By hearing from Paul (or asking directly), perhaps?

I did that, in a private mail due to some temporary mailing list
problems, but did not get an answer. So my question was referring to
Paul. How I should know whether Paul ignores my patch due to an
oversight, or because he is not interested? And because of this
ambiguity in ignoring a patch I think an explicit NACK should be
mandatory if a maintainer is not interested in a patch.

And that goes both ways.  If the logo of the "official" site is not
something so important that git-scm.com can change without gaining
community consensus first, then it equally is within the editorial
discretion of individual git package's maintainer to keep using the
original not the updated logo.

I admit that I was assuming community consensus on the new logo
exactly *because* I saw it on git-scm.com. On the other hand, from my
experience the Git community is not exactly one where is it
particularly easy to get consensus on something, so I completely
understand and support Scott's habit to sometimes go one way without
consulting the community first.

Anyway, I'll include the patch into Git for Windows, because that's
what our users ask for.

-- 
Sebastian Schuberth