On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:02:48PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > >>> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not > >>> that easy when you want those explanations to be actually true, and > >>> corrent--you have to spend time to make sure of that. > >> > >> That's why it's useful for the patch submitter to write them, asking > >> for help when necessary. > >> > >> As a bonus, it helps reviewers understand the effect of the patch. > >> Bugs averted! > > > > Yeah, that would be nice. Too bad I don't have that information, and > > have _zero_ motivation to go and get it for you. > > Just to clarify: That information is not just for Jonathan, but for > everyone on this list and those who dig the history a year down the > road. Contributors who have _zero_ motiviation to find out that > information are not welcome here because they cause friction and take > away time from many others for _zero_ gain. And me, who is trying to figure out what to do with this patch. It is presented on its own, outside of a series, with only the description "no reason not to do this". But AFAICT, it is _required_ for the tests in the remote-hg series to work. Isn't that kind of an important motivation? Yet it is not in the commit message, nor does the remote-hg series indicate that it should be built on top. Or am I wrong that the one is dependent on the other? -Peff -- 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