Re: [PATCH v5 00/36] Massive improvents to rebase and cherry-pick

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Phil Hord [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Phil Hord [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Same as before, but:

Also, remove the patches from Martin von Zweigbergk, because
apparently some people have trouble understanding that they were not
part of this series.

Please try not to sound disgruntled. This attitude is toxic. You have
turned this change into a complaint: that "some people have trouble
understanding" which shows a genuine lack of understanding and
compassion on your part.  Instead you can phrase your change notes
more helpfully if you make changes only when you yourself actually
believe the change should be made.  If you cannot do this, perhaps you
can pretend.

That would be dishonest. Moreover, there wasn't a good reason to
remove these patches, I made it clear I added those patches only to
make sure the real patches of this series worked correctly. Also, I
clarified that to Thomas Rast[1], only to receive a totally
unconstructive comment[2].

Why don't you ask Thomas Rast to be more constructive[2]?

Then Johan Herland uses that as an example of a constructive
comment[3]. Why don't you correct Johan Herland?

I do not see what their comments have to do with your attitude.

My attitude is fine. I sent a lot of patches, and I made clear that
some of them were meant only to test the rest. And I clarified that
twice.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Aren't your own man with cogent self-will and personal responsibility?
 Why should I also have to consider these other emails which I have
not bothered to read yet?

Don't be that girlfriend that brings the times you haven't picked up
the towel properly when talking about something completely and totally
different.

When talking about the attitude in *this* patch series, limit yourself
to *this* patch series.

quoted

No, you pick the easy target: me.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone else.  Moreover, you seem to
have mistaken you for someone else.  You are the least easy target I
know of on this list.

Everyone else seems open to community standards.

And yet you try to correct me, who did nothing wrong. And ignore the
transgressions of the other people, whom I already demonstrated
actually *did* do something wrong. How convenient of you to not
mention my arguments *at all*.

quoted

I already dd more than my fair share by carrying these 36 patches
through several iterations, yet you ask *more* of me. Why don't you
ask more of the people that just hit reply on their MUA?

Thomas' task was easy; he simply had to say "Oh, these aren't meant to
be applied, got it."

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/227039
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/227040
[3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/227102

I did not comment on their posts because they did not catch my eye.
Rebase and cherry-pick improvements are interesting to me, so I read
your post.  I will try not to make this mistake again.

Yes, because my patches are so obviously wrong.

If you were a truly productive member of this community, you would
ignore all the bullshit, take the patches, fix whatever is technically
wrong with them (nothing), and resend them.

But no, that would be way too productive.

-- 
Felipe Contreras