Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:19:46PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > > My point is that if you are going to repost a patch that has known
> > > problems,
> >
> > It was not known that it had problems.
> >
> > That fact that person X said patch Y had a problem doesn't necessarily
> > mean that patch Y has a problem.
> >
> > 1. The problem in the past might not apply in the present
> > 2. The problem X person had might be specific to his/her setup
> > 3. The problem might be due a combination of patches, not the patch
> > itself
> >
> > Plus many others.
> >
> > A logical person sees evidence for what it is, and the only thing that
> > person X saying patch Y had a problem means, is that person X said patch
> > Y had a problem.
>
> Wow.
>
> For one thing, you could still relay the _report_ of a problem along
> with the patch, which would be valuable information for reviewers.
Yes I could have, and knowing what I know now I wouldn't even have even
posted the patch (not without a proposed fix). Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
But that's not the point. The point is that I did not repost a patch with
known problems *today*. Nor did I know what kind of problems, or
how pervasive the issue was.
Presumably you had to try at least 2,500 merges to find *one* issue.
I ran all the tests for diff3 with zdiff3 and they passed without
problems.
Merging this patch would have:
1. Not broken any tests
2. Not changed any behavior for any user
3. Not have caused any problem for the vast majority (> 99%) of
people trying out zdiff3
So there was no carelessness here.
Moreover, I provied the patch at 9:30, at 10:42 you commented about the
segfault, and 16:24 I had the fix. On a Sunday.
If this is not caring, I don't know what is.
--
Felipe Contreras
