Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > The problem in this instance was that the authorship is no longer retained > when continuing after resolving a conflict. Let me stress again that this > has not been a problem with v1 of sequencer-i, nor with v2. The regression > was caused by changes required by the code review. > > In case you wonder: Yes, I am upset by this. > > -- snipsnap -- > Subject: [PATCH] fixup! sequencer: make reading author-script more elegant I do not think anybody asked to make the code "more elegant". Quite frankly, I do not expect elegance in your code (or any of the code in our codebase, for that matter). What we want is readable code that does not make the overall codebase less maintainable that is correct. Not reinveting a new codepath when there is already code that does the thing is one of the things that we may need to do, but that was not done between these rerolls. Of course, when trying to share code, the existing code we have that the new codepath needs to borrow would have to be refactored and extended, and a new bug can sneak in during the process. If that were what happened, I would be a bit more sympathetic, but I suspect that this "more elegant" thing that needed fix-up is not that. You may be upset, but I cannot quite bring myself to feel sympathy in this particular case.