Hi Chris, On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Christian Couder wrote: > Peff wrote: > > > It's been on my todo list to upstream for a while, but I've dragged my > > feet on it because there's a lot of cleanup/polishing from the original > > patches (they were never very clean in the first place, and we've merged > > a dozen or more times with upstream since then, so the updates are > > spread across a bunch of merge commits). > > and then: > > > Yeah, I think we should work on getting our changes (including those > > stats) into upstream. > > So actually I thought that I was helping Peff on this, though I know > of course that it's also helping GitLab and everyone else. In my experience, sending the initial set of patches is the easiest part of contributing patches, by far. The most involved part of the process is to react to reviewer comments and to prepare new iterations. You can see this challenge in action in all the Git for Windows patches/patch series I am "upstreaming". So actually I think that you are doing a disservice to Peff: if he had time for that tedious part of the patch contribution, I am sure it would have been no burden at all to send the initial set of patches. > That's why I put Peff as the author of the patches. No, that is not the reason. You might think that that is the reason, but the real reason why Peff is marked as the author of those patches is that he really authored those patches. In light of what you said, I don't think that it is a good idea to go forward by leaning even further on Peff. From his activity on the Git mailing list, I deduce that he is not exactly in need of even more work. Instead, I think that if you truly want to push these patches forward, you will have to dig deeper yourself, and answer Jonathan Tan's questions, and possibly adjust the patches accordingly and send a new iteration. I perceive it as very unfair toward Peff that this has not yet happened. Ciao, Johannes
