On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> And I don't understand why people want the obvious to be explained. > > Has it ever occurred to you the reason why people ask questions to you is > perhaps because something that is obvious to you who wrote the patch is > not obvious at all to others? Has it also occurred to you that the > majority of people who need to understand the patch during the review and > 6 months down the road in "git log" output are not *you*? Yes, that's why I am still listening. However I have not yet found a question that cannot be answered from the simple description, except the one you brought and I agreed to tackle. I would like to think I have the capacity of empathy, so I would be able to see if something cannot be inferred from the commit message. Of course, I might be wrong, but so far the feedback has not been "no, it's not obvious", but rather " yes, it's obvious... but...". >> Your new point is "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", but you already know what is the new thing from the >> summary "'git blame -e' tests". > > It is not a "new point". Jonathan, Peff and I all never said that it is > unclear "what" your patch adds. The suggestions for improvement given in > this thread were all to explain "why" better. I have heard both. And the "why" can be easily inferred, at least on the first patch. The second one I yet have to fix, as I already replied to you. >> Everybody seems to assume that a simple commit message = bad. I disagree. > > If you find *everybody* seems to disagree with you, it would help to > consider a slight possibility that you *might* be wrong. And "simple" is > not necessarily "sufficient and simple". Of course, it's *possible*, but ad populum is not a valid argument. There's many projects out there, and very few have as verbose commit messages as git. I do not say they are doing it better, as many times a lot of the verbose commit messages do help, but I don't think this is the case. Looking at the latest commits in the Linux kernel show good examples of simple commit messages. Albeit they might be a bit "too simple", my point that they do have a different view on what is "sufficient and simple": http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=27c3afe6e1cf129faac90405121203962da08ff4 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=0d86f65ed0b727daa06d3aa176314cd175323db6 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=10f296cbfe3b93188c41463fd7a53808ebdbcbe3 Of course, what is "sufficient and simple" depends on a case by case basis, but I wonder, if there's any case in which a single line in the commit message summary would suffice, wouldn't adding missing inconspicuous tests for something be it? >> ... And I already pointed out the double standards. > > Sorry, but the absolute uniform standards do not exist, unless you are > living in a fantasy land. I expect better from list regulars as new > contributors will inevitably learn from their behaviour (we also learn > from our past mistakes). Of course, but I can't help but wonder... Why so much fuss for simple tests? And why you didn't bother to add tests for your new code as well? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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