Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This is going to sound harsh, but people shouldn't waste (any more)
time reviewing the patches in this thread or the "merge: cleanups and
fix" series submitted elsewhere.  They should all just be rejected.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect reviewers to spend time
responding to re-posted patches when:
  * no attempt was made to make sure they were up-to-date with current
code beyond compiling (see below)
  * no attempt was made to address missing items pointed out in
response to the original submission[1]
  * no attempt was made to handle or even test particular cases
pointed out in response to the original submission (see [1] and below)
  * the patches were posted despite knowing they caused segfaults, and
without even stating as much![2]
  * the segfault "fixes" are submitted as a separate series from the
patch introducing the segfault[3], raising the risk that one gets
picked up without the other.

Fair enough.  Thanks.

I didn't know some people's opinions on this mailing list were
automatically promoted to facts, but FWIW the vast majority of the
points stated above are simply not true.

-- 
Felipe Contreras