On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > 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. Yeah, that's probably a fair interpretation, too. :) > 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. I can probably save you a little time/mental energy here: the C version already does what your patch was trying to do. Once we switch to it as the default, your patch would be obsolete anyway. :) -Peff
