Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Jeff King wrote: >> [...] IMHO it argues for GfW trying to land patches upstream first, and >> then having them trickle in as you merge upstream releases. > > You know that I tried that, and you know why I do not do that anymore: it > simply takes too long, and the review on the list focuses on things I > cannot focus on as much, I need to make sure that the patches *work* > first, whereas the patch review on the Git mailing list tends to ensure > that they have the proper form first. > > I upstream patches when I have time. You have been developing in the open, so no complaints from me, just a second point of reference: For Google's internal use we sometimes have needed a patch faster than upstream can review it. Our approach in those cases has been to send a patch to the mailing list and then apply it internally immediately. If upstream is stalled for months on review, so be it --- we already have the patch. But this tends to help ensure that we are moving in the same direction. That said, I don't think that was the main issue with --no-optional-locks. I'll comment more on that in another subthread. Thanks, Jonathan
