Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So I can remove this stricture entirely, or make the BUG() stricter and > remove the "git" (or "git-" requirenment. Whatever you prefer after > reading the above.. My preference is that you do not have this patch at all. We do not need it now, and we do not know, and more imoprtantly, we do not have to decide, what we want to do when we add a guide whose name does not want to begin with "git". It would only locally be one patch we do not have to discuss out of 9, but things add up. If you switch to the attitude of not churning what you do not have to touch right at the moment, hopefully it would save reviewers' time. It unfortunately probably make you spend more time thinking about everything you do if that is essential or unnecessary churn after writing but before sending them out. But hopefully the original author spending more time and effort on the quality of the primary part of the changes, without getting distracted and without distracting reviewers by what is not necessary yet, would contribute positively to the quality of the end product? THanks.
