Re: git status always modifies index?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Again, maybe the bit above explains my viewpoint a bit more. I'm
> certainly sympathetic to the pain of upstreaming.
>
> I do disagree with the "no good reason" for this particular patch.
>
> Certainly you should feel free to present your hunches. I'd expect you
> to as part of the review (I'm pretty sure I even solicited your opinion
> when I sent the original patch). But I also think it's important for
> patches sent upstream to get thorough review (both for code and design).
> The patches having been in another fork (and thus presumably being
> stable) is one point in their favor, but I don't think it should trumps
> all other discussion.

I haven't been following this subthread closely, but I agree.  I
think your turning a narrow option that was only about status into
something that can be extended as a more general option resulted in
a better design overall.

I am guessing that a little voice in his head said "this may be
applicable wider than Windows and it will be better to be humble and
receptive to others' suggestions by going to the list and get this
patch reviewed" was overridden by other needs, like expediency, when
he did the initial "covers only status and its opportunistic writing
of the index" as a Windows only thing, and Dscho is now regretting
not following that initial hunch, as that resulted in unnecessary
pain for both himself and his users.  I am sympathetic, but we are
all normal human and I do not think and mistakes like this can be
avoided.  Often we are blinded by the immediate issue in front of us
and we lose sight of a bigger picture, and it is OK as long as we
learn from our (or better yet, others') mistakes.

Thanks.