On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Philip Oakley [off-list ref] wrote:

From: "Felipe Contreras" <redacted>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:24 AM

quoted

Clearly, a lot of my patches have not been reviewed properly, so even
though they are technically correct, and would benefit users, some have
specifically been requested by them, and at least one would
significantly improve Git's user interface...

Given you have put a lot of work into your 16 patch series, is there any
particular order, or grouping that would help their review.

I ordered them in order of importance, and chance of being merged. For
example, the first patch series 'branch: improve verbose option' is
relatively simple, it improves things significantly, and other
developers have already argued this is the way to go. The last one
'sha1-name: refactor get_sha1() parsing' doesn't have much of a chance
of being merged, it's quite complicated, there isn't any particular
change that is visible to the users, and there isn't probably much
interest.

With so many patches to consider one (the reviewer(s)) gains another task of
simply trying to prioritise the patches (usually one can take big decisions
by simply remebering who's series one was interested in).

I expect the clean-ups and 'trivials's' can be managed separately from the
'improvements', which would again be separate from the "satging" and "Ruby"
philosophical discussions.

Maybe, but the trivial patches have a higher chance of being merged
than 'Massive improvents to rebase and cherry-pick' or 'Support for
Ruby', that's why I put them first.

quoted

  they are going nowhere.

I wouldn't expect 100% success. Every now and again one hears of the "here's
some patches I've had in my tree for a while" that probably had the same
early frustrations - they just feel worse the more you produce.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, I have contributed to lots of open source
projects. However, we are not talking about a couple of patches that
now and again get lost, we are talking about 160 patches, some which
have gone through several (even ten) iterations. I think that is
different.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras