Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hmm. I'm not sure if that's a good resolution here. I do think many > > people were positive in moving in that direction. If there's a > > contributor that people have trouble working with, I'm OK giving up on > > possible contributions they could make, even adaptations of their work. > > > > But if by working in an area they poison it for others (because there's > > no desire to work with them, but no desire to step on their toes) that > > doesn't seem like a workable long-term strategy. > > You may lick a corner of a piece of cake and think that it would > repel other people enough to leave only you to consider eating it, > but no, in this project, you aren't allowed to lick a Makefile and > claim that you own it. I wonder who might have attempted to do that in your view. In reality have I have never attempted to do anything remotely close to that. > Also, if some contributors get too annoying to be worth our time > interacting with, it is OK to ignore them. But do you have a valid reason? Or is it just petty personal animus? Talk is cheap. Code is what speaks. I'm doing valid, useful, and substantial code. It is the project that suffers from ignoring it. Ignore me all you want, but the code doesn't stop being valid. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210618203057.790320-1-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210618215231.796592-1-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx -- Felipe Contreras
