Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Also, gitgitgadget #1156 was opened because of my suggestion to do > this as a "leftoverbit", i.e. I was suggesting it as a micro-project > to new people. I should have checked at the time that it was a valid > micro-project, but neglected to do so. You merely came along and > started implementing what was suggested. > > Anyway, the point of the GSoC microprojects are to make sure you are > familiar with how to format and submit patches to the mailing list and > respond; having the code you contribute in a microproject be accepted > is not required, just a bonus. And you clearly managed to send the > patch to the list, had a correctly formatted commit message (short > summary with area and correct lack of capitalization, good > descriptions, signed-off-by), got the additional notes for reviewers > (very helpful!) in the correct spot, etc., so I still see this as a > successful microproject for you. I apologize for not doing my due > diligence when I suggested it, and for us not catching that it should > have been closed when someone implemented the valid half of the > suggestion last year. One possible action item for us may be to rename or give comment to highlight the in-place destructive nature of the function to make it easier for developers to use (or avoid misusing) it.
