Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
>> The answer can
>> be a simple "nobody bothered to write them", and that's OK.
>
> That can be derived from the word "add". You can't add something that
> is already there.
You are correct to say that you cannot add something that is already
there, but that does not mean you explained why that new thing is a good
thing to add. In other words, you can add a new thing that we did not
have, but it would not result in a good addition if that new thing is
irrelevant. Relevance needs to be explained.
I do think in this particular case, the new check *is* relevant, because
Although we did have "blame" test to see how the name part is shown,
we had no "blame -e" test to see how the email part is shown.
I do not understand why you are resisting to explain how your addition
adds value to the system with such a simple two-liner, and instead are
endlessly arguing. Is it to make sure you are the one to utter the last
word in the thread?
As I am sort of getting tired of seeing you making things more difficult
for yourself, I'll refrain from commenting on this topic at least for a
few days to wait until things cool down.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html