Hi Peff, On Mon, 9 Dec 2019, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 09:54:01AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > 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. > > To be clear, I am not bothered by this. And in fact I feel bad that I > promised Christian that I take a careful look at the patches again, but > haven't gotten around to it (for an embarrassingly long time now). > > Now I would _love_ if somebody else dug into the topic enough to > understand all of the ins and outs, and whether what they're doing is > sane (or could be done better). That's what I thought. When I bring patches to the Git mailing list, it means implicitly not only that I understand the ins and outs of them, but also that I am fully prepared to address reviewer comments and send out new, enhanced iterations. That holds when I send patch series that include patches authored by someone else than me. I thought that that is kind of expected, otherwise there would be no good reason for _me_ to send those patches, right? > But barring that, these patches have been battle-tested for many years > on GitHub's servers, so even if we just take them as-is I hope it would > be an improvement. > > Fortunately I have some other work to do that I would like very much to > procrastinate on, so let me see if that can summon the willpower for me > to review these. Heh, I know that feeling. > > Well, you have time enough to send lengthy replies on a Sunday morning > > (while Peff apparently did not even have time to say that he lacks the > > time to work on this). > > One tricky thing here is that I leave messages or subthreads that I > intend to act on in my incoming Git mbox. And of course as time goes on, > those get pushed further back in the pile. But when new messages arrive, > mutt attaches them to the old threads, and I sometimes don't see them > (until I go back and sift through the pile). > > I wish there was a good way to have mutt remain in threaded mode, but > sort the threads by recent activity. Setting sort_aux=last-date kind of > works, but last time I tried it, I got annoyed that it did funny things > with the order of patches within a thread (if somebody replies to patch > 3/5, and then 2/5, it will pull 3/5 down as "more recent"). When I hit such a situation, I usually go on this kind of insane side-track to figure out whether it would be easy to fix this (it's open source, after all). Last time I tried such a thing, though, I had to admit that it was not easy (but I use Alpine, not mutt, out of sheer inability to adjust my muscle memory). > Dscho, you may feel free to roll your eyes and mutter under your breath > about email if you wish. ;) Done. ;-) Ciao, Dscho
