Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Again, maybe the bit above explains my viewpoint a bit more. I'm > certainly sympathetic to the pain of upstreaming. > > I do disagree with the "no good reason" for this particular patch. > > Certainly you should feel free to present your hunches. I'd expect you > to as part of the review (I'm pretty sure I even solicited your opinion > when I sent the original patch). But I also think it's important for > patches sent upstream to get thorough review (both for code and design). > The patches having been in another fork (and thus presumably being > stable) is one point in their favor, but I don't think it should trumps > all other discussion. I haven't been following this subthread closely, but I agree. I think your turning a narrow option that was only about status into something that can be extended as a more general option resulted in a better design overall. I am guessing that a little voice in his head said "this may be applicable wider than Windows and it will be better to be humble and receptive to others' suggestions by going to the list and get this patch reviewed" was overridden by other needs, like expediency, when he did the initial "covers only status and its opportunistic writing of the index" as a Windows only thing, and Dscho is now regretting not following that initial hunch, as that resulted in unnecessary pain for both himself and his users. I am sympathetic, but we are all normal human and I do not think and mistakes like this can be avoided. Often we are blinded by the immediate issue in front of us and we lose sight of a bigger picture, and it is OK as long as we learn from our (or better yet, others') mistakes. Thanks.
