Re: [PATCH 2/2] transport-helper: update remote helper namespace

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Why wasn't this patch merged to 'pu'? To my knowledge nobody raised
any real concerns.

There are many reasons not to queue _everything_ ever posted to the
list on 'pu', and they are almost always not a deliberate rejection.

The maintainer may have thought he is not the best person to judge
changes to the area the patch touches, and may be expecting further
comments from others, but haven't said "Comments?" and waiting for
them to say something without being asked. Or the maintainer may
have judged that it is likely to result in wasted work if he queues
that version of the patch, fixing trivial nits himself, only to see
a reroll arrive before the day's integration cycle finishes (which
makes him run the cycle again). Or the maintainer may have been busy
tending to other topics. Or the maintainer may have pushed the patch
down the queue for any of the above reasons to deal with it later,
and after having tended to others' topics, may have forgotten about
that patch.

The world is full of possibilities, but most of them are irrelevant,
specially since 'the maintainer' is right here and can mention the
reason himself. Is there anything wrong in asking?

An earlier draft of my message starte with "Do you have to be
combative to ask a simple 'did you forget this?' question?", but
later I removed it. That was what made it irrelevant ;-)

Just rerolling with what _you_ think is an appropriate level of
explanation (either or both in log and in-code) and see what happens
would probably be the best way to proceed, I think, at this
point. Either you hear "It still is wrong and too sketchy", "Yeah,
thinking about it again, this is sufficient" from others.  Or a
silent, which I am inclined to take as much closer to the latter
after all the discussion.

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:45:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Just rerolling with what _you_ think is an appropriate level of
explanation (either or both in log and in-code) and see what happens
would probably be the best way to proceed, I think, at this
point. Either you hear "It still is wrong and too sketchy", "Yeah,
thinking about it again, this is sufficient" from others.  Or a
silent, which I am inclined to take as much closer to the latter
after all the discussion.

FWIW, the last email I wrote on this patch said:

  So I can buy the argument that bumping it forward ourselves will not
  matter for any well-implemented helper.

and I was the only reviewer, so I think the code is probably OK. I also
said:

  That is the sort of thing that might be helpful to include in the
  commit message[...]

Felipe of course did not agree, but I have no interest in trying to
persuade him on that front, as it seems to just waste everyone's time.

-Peff

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Just rerolling with what _you_ think is an appropriate level of
explanation (either or both in log and in-code) and see what happens
would probably be the best way to proceed, I think, at this
point. Either you hear "It still is wrong and too sketchy", "Yeah,
thinking about it again, this is sufficient" from others.  Or a
silent, which I am inclined to take as much closer to the latter
after all the discussion.

For future reference, sometimes when I am silent it does not mean
agreement but means "I am fed up and don't consider it to be worth the
drain on my energy to deal with this mess."  Which is pretty close to
"let's move on; this is sufficient", yes.

Thanks,
Jonathan