From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Mention "git blame" improvements in release notes Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:57:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87ha5d4480.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <1398470210-28746-1-git-send-email-dak@gnu.org> <1398470210-28746-2-git-send-email-dak@gnu.org> <7vmwf8huey.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87zjj86j4a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y4yp4ame.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 28 21:57:35 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WergE-0004Xb-8J for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:57:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754554AbaD1T5Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:57:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:42177 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751408AbaD1T5U (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:57:20 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41219 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Werg0-0008UY-3y; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:57:20 -0400 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 96FE6E05FE; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:57:19 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:35:02 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > I guess we probably can add "See $URL if you are interested in his > further plans" after that two-line item and let you write whatever > you want at that page pointed at by the URL, though. I most definitely am _not_ planning to invest any more time into Git since even designing such plans would be throwing good time after bad time. And I don't have a web presence anyway. As it does not appear that there is any realistic manner in which Git users could even be made aware of a connection between monetary requirements and work for a freelancer like myself, I'll be just writing this off as a one-time mistake on my part given my personal situation. It's not the first, and it will certainly not be the last, but at least I can avoid doing the same mistake twice on the same project. There are some low-hanging fruit for further speeding up git-blame now that its internal thrashing has been addressed. I will point out those low-hanging fruit so that anybody can follow up on it and do all the arguing and benchmarking required to go anywhere and get the credit for it. But that's as far as my willingness to "do the right thing" will carry. If nobody picks up either the tab or the rather simple followup tasks, then that's what the community and customer base of Git is capable of sustaining and I'm not in a position to change it. -- David Kastrup