On Wed, Jun 30 2021, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:09:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > It looks like Junio carried it in "What's Cooking" for almost a >> > year, marked as "waiting for re-roll" to handle the squash, but then >> > eventually discarded it as stale. :( >> >> Heh, thanks for digging. >> >> Is the moral of the story that we should merge down unfinished >> topics more aggressively (hoping that the untied loose ends would be >> tied after they hit released version), we should prod owners of >> stalled topics with sharper stick more often, or something else? > > I'm not sure. I think the topic would have graduated if either you had > just applied the squash and merged it down, or if the original author > had checked back in over the intervening year to say "hey, what happened > to my patch" (either by reading "what's cooking" or manually). > > I suspect drive-by contributors might not realize they need to do the > latter in some cases, but I wouldn't have counted 2014-era Ævar in that > boat. So I dunno. Or maybe the moral of the story that it's a net addition of complexity to git-add--interactive.perl. If I didn't care enough to remember or notice the issue again maybe it wasn't all that important to begin with. Likewise when it got ejected nobody else seemed to notice/care enough to say "hey I liked that feature" & to pick it up. I'd entirely forgotten I wrote that. Now that I'm reminded of it I don't care enough myself to rebase it, test it again, and especially not to figure out if/how it's going to interact with the new C implementation / add and adjust a test for the two. But maybe someone else will, it would be neat if someone has more of an itch from the lack of that feature & wants to pick it up.
