Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I didn't want want to cause a delay with this patch. Since the new > option was seemingly working without it,... It is a good example to help other new contributors to understand an important point in how the development in common works, so let me say this. I did very much wanted to keep the bug exposed at least to the test suite. Since the broken helper were designed to be used in many other places in the code, and we had a simple reproduction recipe in this topic, using it as an opening to help debug and fix bugs in the broken helper had higher priority than adding the "--force-if-includes" feature. We help the contributors who have been involved in the broken helper by delaying this topic a bit and leaving the reproduction readily available to them, so that they help us who are working on a piece of code that wants to see the broken helper fixed. That way everybody benefits. It's not like a corporate development where your interest lies in shipping your piece regardless of the work done by other teams, where it might serve you better by using the second best tool for the task, to avoid the tool that ought to be best but does not work well *and* you do not want to help the team that manages that best tool, even if helping them may benefit the whole organization. So, let's play well together. Yield a bit to help others and let others also help you. Thanks.
