Hello Johannes, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Oh, sorry. I understood your mail as if you had told the core Git > developers that they should implement the feature you desire. I did not > understand that you hinted at a discussion first, and that you would then > go and implement the feature you asked for. Well, sorry for being misunderstandable. It was my impression from the FAQ that the reason for why this feature doesn't exist was a strong opinion that it would cause technical problems. The FAQ doesn't mention anything like a lack of manpower. As I stated it was my impression that this feature would not be too hard to implement. Because of this my email presupposed it was not manpower that prevented this feature. My statement "Please provide options" was thus targeted at reviewing and discussing the perceived technical reasons for not implementing this feature at least as an option. It wasn't supposed to demand free lunch from anyone. Of course I can offer to do some work to the best of my abilitites if that's the issue. That should go without saying for Free Software projects. Perhaps even my employer would be happy to pay me for implementing the feature during workign hours. This shouldn't be the issue. The issue is the seemingly dogmatic reply in the FAQ which makes me reluctant to put work into this in fear that a patch submission would be met with strong rejection. > You will not be able to convince the core Git developers to make this the > default, I don't think. I have stressed very clearly in my mail that I am not asking the defaults about mtime restoring to be changed. I agree that those defaults are reasonable and in line with the principle of least astonishment. What bugs me is my impression from the FAQ that even as an option, the feature might be unwelcome. Best wishes Peter -- Peter Backes, rtc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
