James Denholm wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > It becomes easier to actually change things when communicating in a less > > > abrasive and destructive manner. > > > > That would make sense if I was the only one with the itch. But I wasn't the > > only one, so anybody could take the patches and send them in a less > > abrasive maner. > > It's not anybody else's job to take your patches and drizzle them in the > honey of respectable discourse. It's nobody's job to do anything. This a collaborative effort and in a collaborative effort everbody chimes in to do different things. It's not Jeff's patches, they are our patches, they are part of the project. And it's not unusual for multiple people working on a patch series; one person doing most of the work, another adding tests, another cleaning updocumentation. It's also no unheard of from a person picking up a patch series somebody else stopped working on. If a patch series is event considered to be merged upstream, that means it doesn't just benefit the person sending it (e.g. me), it benefits all Git users. So "my" patches where by the project and for the project. > > The fact of the matter is that the tone doesn't matter, the patches don't > > get in because change is not welcome. Period. > > You neglect the possibility that your personal view of what git should > be differs from other people's. Except that in this case virtually everyone agreed the default was wrong. I already said that. Clarly you didn't read the relevant discussions where everyone, including Linus Torvalds, agreed. Did you? -- 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