On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:03:35AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:34:15AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > >> As added review: This is the same patch diff as I sent on February 9th: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-1.2-d93c160dcbc-20230209T142225Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/; > >> my local range-diff to my previously submitted topic & next being: > >> [...] > >> So this LGTM. > > > > Thanks, and sorry for stealing your patch. I forgot that yours existed > > in that thread (and obviously I'm happy if either is applied). > > I am not Ævar but the last time this happened what he said was that > he did so not because he wanted to complain that somebody else stole > his thunder but because he wanted to show his agreement to the patch > by pointing at an indenendent invention of the same thing. > > I personally do not appreciate that tactics, exactly because it can > easily be misinterpreted as a complaint. Saying "I read the patch > and I think it is exactly how I would solve the problem, too. > Looking good" would have been much safer in that regard and conveyed > the same agreement. I think you are being too hard on Ævar here. While I agree it can be interpreted as passive aggressive sniping, I'd be a little frustrated, too, if I had written a patch and then somebody submitted the exact same thing later. (Hence my response that it was "oops" and not an intentional slight). If two people are independently doing the same work, we're wasting effort, and it's worth thinking about how we can avoid that. In this particular case, my opinion is that Ævar's original patch was OK by itself, but it was coupled with an unwelcome change. Submitting the cleanup to the now-empty callbacks on their own would have had a greater chance of success. (As a maintainer, you can also split up patches after the fact, but there is cognitive load in doing so. Minimizing that load is something submitters can do to help the project scale). -Peff
