Junio C Hamano wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Clearly, a lot of my patches have not been reviewed ...

I think the reason for it most likely is because you earned the Bozo
bit ($gmane/227602) in many reviewers' eyes.

So what you are saying is that the reason is entirely personal, not technical.
Is that correct?

However, it is funny how Theodore Ts'o is saying so in that mail, yet at the
same time he is actively engaged in at least two discussions started by me in
two different projects (Linux and isync) just last week.

I phrased it differently ($gmane/233347) at the beginning of this
cycle,

You said:

---
It seems that Matthew is trying to see if you can work better with
others than before after a break, but I personally am not hopeful
yet and do not want to waste my/our time on flamewars like we saw in
the past.
---

By which you presumably are referring to this patch series:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/233295/focus=233306

It seems to me there's no negative fallout from that thread, and Matthieu Moy
still thinks this is a good series, yet you haven't applied it, or even
commented on it.

but I'll say it one more time. I'll refrain from responding
to your messages with anything other than "looks good, thanks". A
patch from you that I do not understand the motivation behind it, or
a patch from you that attempts to solve a problem I see better ways
of solving the same, will not see the usual response from me that
requests a clarification (in the resulting code or in its
explanation in the proposed commit log message) or suggests an
improvement or an alternative.

So, what you are saying is that if none of my 160 patches have been picked yet,
it means you will not be picking them, even though you are not explicitly
saying so. Is that correct?

Even if other Git developers agree it's a good change, you will not be picking
them. Correct?

Such a review comment and the discussion that follows it after a
patch is posted is an essential part of the collaborative
development process in this community and it has helped the quality
of our end product. We unfortunately saw time and again that the
process rarely works when the discussion involves your patches.

No, you did not. What you saw was a person that unlike a trained dog, argued
against you. And apparently your definition of a good discussion is one in
which the other person just does what you say, and doesn't argue back.

Let me be clear; what I did is provide arguments against your arguments, which
means all I did was disagree. That is all.

I haven't caught up with the list traffic yet, but the way the
discussion that followed a recent review ($gmane/235936) progressed
tells me that things haven't improved much, so the assessment above
still seems to hold true, at least to me.

I applied the change requested in ($gmane/235936), so there is no more comments
left on that series, there's nothing that prevents that series from being
picked, yet it's not.

Presumably you have a problem with that series, but you haven't spoken, and you
won't, even though it's not just me that is waiting for a response, but other
Git developers (and users) who are interested in moving this forward.

Anyway, I spent a lot of time working on those 160 patches, I would appreciate
if you could respond to this single question:

Are the patches going to be applied? Yes or no.

-- 
Felipe Contreras