Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 6/1/2021 2:14 PM, Emily Shaffer wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 02:11:02PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > >> After suggesting[1] an another round that the config-based-hook > >> topic[2] should take a more incremental approach to reach its end goal > >> I thought I'd try hacking that up. > > I think sending this complete reorganization of a long-lived topic > is not helpful, especially because the end-to-end diff is significant. The end-to-end diff is significant because it's not the full patch series. Give me pointers to the two branches and I'll get you a patch series on top of Ævar's that gets you *exactly* zero end-to-end diff to Emily's series. There's many paths to end up with exactly the same code. I do it all the time. > I've also seen messages as early as January where Ævar mentioned > wanting to review the series, but not finding the time to do so. > It is reasonable to expect that contributors attempt such major > reorganizations according to reviewers feedback, as long as the > reviewers are timely about delivering that feedback. The Git project doesn't have deadlines. Code should be merged when it's ready to be merged, not when it's convenient for $company. I have patches that have been stuck for 7 years. Why should $company get a fast-path, an exception, or preferential treatment? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
