Hi Junio, On 10/02/2020 09:50, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Thank you for pointing this out. You're right; I should not have rushed to disabling the feature because it wasn't working with my patch instead of waiting for the issue to be investigated. This is valuable advice, and I will keep this in mind when making future contributions. Thanks. -- Srinidhi Kaushik
