Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

Junio C Hamano wrote:
...

quoted

I was originally led to believe that its code quality was good
enough, and that was why I merged the bottom three patches of the
series even down to 'next' in the first place.  But after seeing the
"Of course" response that led to [*1*], which made me recall many
patch-review interactions with him, I have started to have doubts.

This is bullshit, and a wrong direction fallacy.

Event #1:
Junio rejects the graduation
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248263

Event #2:
I give up improving remote helpers in git.git
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248063/focus=248341

Junio is trying to make you believe that his decision (#1) was caused by
something I did (#2). Don't fall into that trap, #2 happened *AFTER* #1,
it can't possibly be the cause.

I think you misunderstood.

I never said that I do not want it to graduate up (out is an option)
based on code quality.  In fact, I do not think anybody discussed
about code quality until this morning.

But because I was asked, I thought about it, and then answered
honestly.  I do not know what a trap you perceive is about, and I am
not interested in your responses.

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Junio C Hamano wrote:
...

quoted

I was originally led to believe that its code quality was good
enough, and that was why I merged the bottom three patches of the
series even down to 'next' in the first place.  But after seeing the
"Of course" response that led to [*1*], which made me recall many
patch-review interactions with him, I have started to have doubts.

This is bullshit, and a wrong direction fallacy.

Event #1:
Junio rejects the graduation
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248263

Event #2:
I give up improving remote helpers in git.git
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/248063/focus=248341

Junio is trying to make you believe that his decision (#1) was caused by
something I did (#2). Don't fall into that trap, #2 happened *AFTER* #1,
it can't possibly be the cause.

I think you misunderstood.

I never said that I do not want it to graduate up (out is an option)
based on code quality.

Fair enough, that was my understanding up until today.

But because I was asked, I thought about it, and then answered
honestly.  I do not know what a trap you perceive is about, and I am
not interested in your responses.

Philippe Vaucher didn't ask about quality, he asked about moving out of
contrib.

-- 
Felipe Contreras