On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 12:28:05AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 10:28:39PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> >>> Something is better than nothing. >> >> >> >> Yes, but... >> > >> > ;-) >> > >> > This is a good example that sometimes something is worse than nothing, >> > unless watched carefully by a competent reviewer. >> >> And this is a good example of why you shouldn't blindly trust what a >> 'competent reviewer' says, as I'm pretty sure the comment is wrong. >> >> But hey, if you prefer nothing, fine, drop this patch; let's continue >> to blindly modify the completion and fix regressions as they come. I >> guess I should drop my other tests as well. > > Sorry, but I think you are wrong, and this is a perfect example of why > you are sometimes frustrating to work with. Your patch is definitely a > move in the right direction, and we would love to have something like it > as part of git. And I'm sure it runs fine under _your_ setup. But the > git community is much larger than just your setup, and your patch is a > regression for other people, as it breaks "make test". > > Did I say "let's throw away this patch"? No. I said "here is a problem > with your patch", and I even sketched out a fix. My comment was to Junio, not to you; Junio said "sometimes something is worse than nothing"; if that's not preferring nothing, I don't know what it is. I just sent an email where I assumed you preferred the status quo, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but my last patches to add some tests were never applied because you advocated the status quo; no tests. > And nor do I think Junio was saying "let's throw it out". I think he was > responding specifically to "something is better than nothing". It's > _not_ better if it regresses other cases. So the patch as-is is not > acceptable, but it could be made so. Did you notice the "RFC" part of it? This patch was not meant to be applied as-is. > But instead of taking the constructive criticism and iterating on your > patch, you are ready to withdraw your patch. That seems silly when you > have already done the hard part, and the fix to make the patch > acceptable is the easy part. I have already done the "hard part" in the past and yet my patches were dropped because of commit message wording (or whatever), and we ended up with the status quo; no tests. So excuse me if I'm not eager to engage in a discussion in which you provide some "constructive criticism", Junio agrees, I disagree, and the patch never goes anywhere. > But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there is no problem at all with your patch, > and my analysis is wrong, and yours is right. I am willing to admit that > as a possibility. But let's discuss it in the other part of the thread > and find out, shall we? I didn't say there was no problem with the patch, I said the *particular* problem that you pointed out was incorrect (the shebang). But OK, I will try once more to provide a more proper solution, let's see how it goes. 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