On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:24 AM >> Clearly, a lot of my patches have not been reviewed properly, so even >> though they are technically correct, and would benefit users, some have >> specifically been requested by them, and at least one would >> significantly improve Git's user interface... > > Given you have put a lot of work into your 16 patch series, is there any > particular order, or grouping that would help their review. I ordered them in order of importance, and chance of being merged. For example, the first patch series 'branch: improve verbose option' is relatively simple, it improves things significantly, and other developers have already argued this is the way to go. The last one 'sha1-name: refactor get_sha1() parsing' doesn't have much of a chance of being merged, it's quite complicated, there isn't any particular change that is visible to the users, and there isn't probably much interest. > With so many patches to consider one (the reviewer(s)) gains another task of > simply trying to prioritise the patches (usually one can take big decisions > by simply remebering who's series one was interested in). > > I expect the clean-ups and 'trivials's' can be managed separately from the > 'improvements', which would again be separate from the "satging" and "Ruby" > philosophical discussions. Maybe, but the trivial patches have a higher chance of being merged than 'Massive improvents to rebase and cherry-pick' or 'Support for Ruby', that's why I put them first. >> they are going nowhere. > > I wouldn't expect 100% success. Every now and again one hears of the "here's > some patches I've had in my tree for a while" that probably had the same > early frustrations - they just feel worse the more you produce. Yeah, I'm aware of that, I have contributed to lots of open source projects. However, we are not talking about a couple of patches that now and again get lost, we are talking about 160 patches, some which have gone through several (even ten) iterations. I think that is different. 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