Hi Dscho, On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 9:54 AM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I think Peff can say by himself what he thinks about my work when I rework the raw patches he sends to help get them upstreamed. It's not the first time that I have done that and every time I have done it, I think he has found it useful. Even this time he also wrote that my work has been useful. > > 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. That doesn't contradict at all what I am saying. I am saying that I kept Peff as the author because I am just helping him, which means that I actually acknowledge that he really authored those patches, no? > 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. I think it's ok to ping people, even many times, when they have said that they want to work on something but for some reason don't do it. That's what Junio did by the way too. Junio just pinged everyone involved, and then I pinged Peff specifically as I think the part of the work left is more his than mine. If Peff had said that he doesn't want to work on this any more then I wouldn't ping him, and I would perhaps try something else, like just ask for only the first patch (1/9) to be merged. > 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 think that it's ok to ping Peff until he says that he doesn't or cannot for some reason work on this anymore. This shouldn't be a big burden for him to say that, no? > I perceive it as very unfair toward Peff that this has not yet happened. I perceive it as unfair to me that you think that I have to do a lot of work on this when Peff hasn't even said that he doesn't want to, or cannot, answer Jonathan's question. Best, Christian.
