Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The "author" refers to the author of the "proposed log message" of
the patch in question, i.e. me in this case.  The author of the
patch under discussion thinks it is, so asking "Is it?",

This is the full quote:

====
Let's fix the interactions of these bits to first make "-s" work as intended.
====

If instead you meant this:

====
Let's fix the interactions of these bits to first make "-s" work as I intend.
====

Then that's not a rationale, you are essentially saying "let's do X because I
want".

This will be the last message from me on this.  I wouldn't have even
seen the message I am responding to, as I've already done my "once
every few days sweep the spam folder to find things to salvage", but
somebody notified me of it, so...

I didn't say and I didn't mean "as I intend", and you know that.

I, the author of the patch under discussion, know that it is the
intention of the author of the earlier commit that introduced
"--no-patch" to make it work identically as "-s".

I even had a quote from that earlier commit in the proposed log
message of the patch (look for d09cd15d) to substantiate the fact
that it was the intended way for the option "--no-patch" to work.
So, either you are arguing against the patch you didn't even read,
or you are playing your usual word twisting game just for the sake
of arguing.

quoted

And it led to unproductive and irritating waste of time number of times, and
eventually you were asked to leave the development community for at least a
few times.

That is blatantly false. As a member of Git's Project Leadership Committee, you
should know precisely how many times the committee has excercised this power,
and it hasn't been "a few times", it has been one time.

You were asked to leave in May 2014, and according to that message
from May 2014 [*1*], apparently you were asked to leave after a big
"Felipe eruption" in the summer of 2013 [*2*].  These happened long
before the project adopted a formal CoC at 5cdf2301 (add a Code of
Conduct document, 2019-09-24).

But apparently the "fact" does not matter to you.  I know that your
next excuse will be "I said the committee never exercised this power
more than once, which is a FACT", which may let you keep arguing
further.


[References]

*1* https://lore.kernel.org/git/53709788.2050201@alum.mit.edu/ (local)
*2* https://public-inbox.org/git/7vsj0lvs8f.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/