From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2009, #07; Wed, 28) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:32:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20090212123207.GA5397@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20090129113735.GA6505@coredump.intra.peff.net> <351A6988-32EB-473F-B6E5-8FBB38D91F88@ai.rug.nl> <20090129115026.GB10792@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090130045131.GB18655@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vr62j0wpc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v3aekqhpo.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Sverre Rabbelier , Pieter de Bie , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 12 13:34:02 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LXal9-0006TG-SJ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:33:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756607AbZBLMcM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:32:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756561AbZBLMcM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:32:12 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:58240 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbZBLMcL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:32:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 8190 invoked by uid 107); 12 Feb 2009 12:32:28 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:32:28 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:32:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v3aekqhpo.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:42:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > We seem to have acquired a bad habit of discussing and agreeing on a > potential improvement and then not following through, forgetting it > altogether. > > Exciting new features we can count on original submitters to stick to them > and push them forward whether we go into a release freeze, but the more > boring kind of patches that we already know what we want to see by the > next release are actually the more important to the overall project; > sadly, they tend to get lost somewhere in the crack. I wonder if we can > do anything about it. I used to be more diligent about making a note of such things in my todo list and then actually trying to reduce the size of that todo list occasionally. But my git time has shrunk a bit lately due to my day job, and I have been spending more time reviewing patches and discussing ideas on the list, so it has been a while since I have actually sat down to check something off of my todo. I think in this case it was a matter of "it didn't make it onto anybody's todo list". So I think it is nice that you put together the patch; but I also think a gentle nudge of "so is anybody going to do this?" would have worked, since it gives another chance for people to claim ownership. > And no, a bug tracker is not the answer, even though it could be a (small) > part of the solution. Maybe it would be sufficient to simply keep a public record of intent-to-work on certain topics. Usually it is obvious from the mail exchange what is going to happen next, but sometimes (as I think in this case) it is left somewhat ambiguous. > -- >8 -- > Subject: Install the default "master" branch configuration after cloning a void The patch looks good to me. -Peff