Sergey Organov wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> > When a command does not behave the way one thinks it should, being > >> > curious is good. Reporting it as a potential bug is also good. But > >> > it would help the project more if it was triaged before reporting it > >> > as a potential bug, if the reporter is capable of doing so. Those > >> > who encounter behaviour unexpected to them are more numerous than > >> > those who can report it as a potential bug (many people are not > >> > equipped to write a good bug report), and those who can triage and > >> > diagnose a bug report are fewer. Those who can come up with a > >> > solution is even more scarse. > >> > >> I'm afraid the solution I'd come up with won't be welcomed. > > > > My solutions are often not welcomed, and yet I still implement them. > > > > It might be a waste of time, but often I've found out that very quickly > > after attempting to come up with a solution I realize there's a lot of > > detail I was missing initially, so even if the solution is not welcomed, > > it helps me to understand the problem space and be more helpful in the > > discussion of potential solutions. > > > > So if I were you, I would still attempt to do it, just to gather some > > understanding. > > I sympathize, and I did recently. However, I figure I'd rather spend my > time elsewhere, say, in the Linux kernel, where my experience is > somewhat different, and allows me to enjoy my work. Completely agree. My experience in the Linux project is that of a true meritocracy: Linus Torvalds doesn't have to like me, if the patch is good, it gets merged. Period. > > I for one welcome any and all attempts to fix git's awful user > > interface, regardless of the reception of the maintainer, and the "core > > club". > > For UI, the problem is that there is no core model defined, nor any > guidelines are given, so every discussion ends-up being what "makes > sense" and what doesn't for a user, everyone involved having his own > preference, that often even changes over time. > > In this situation attempting to fix the UI sounds like waste of efforts, > as nobody can actually point at the state of the UI to which we are > willing to converge, so there are no objective criteria for accepting of > fixup patches. It's even worse than that. There used to be objective criteria like the old Git User's Surveys [1], but it turned out Git developers did not care about the feedback from users, which is why there wasn't any point in continuing them. And worse: even when all Git developers agree on a UI change, except one, it doesn't matter, because that one has absolute veto power. Not very hopeful prospects for Git's UI. Cheers. [1] https://archive.kernel.org/oldwiki/git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSurvey2016.html -- Felipe Contreras
