From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] test-lib: avoid full path to store test results Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:17:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20121102131726.GC2598@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1351570377-894-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20121030044609.GA10873@elie.Belkin> <20121031012730.GY15167@elie.Belkin> <20121031021318.GB15167@elie.Belkin> <509167C8.6090600@kdbg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Sixt , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 02 14:17:42 2012 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 1TUH81-0004yJ-Qz for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:17:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756079Ab2KBNR3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:17:29 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:54424 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752475Ab2KBNR3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:17:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 4023 invoked by uid 107); 2 Nov 2012 13:18:12 -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/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:18:12 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:17:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <509167C8.6090600@kdbg.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:02:48PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > >>> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not > >>> that easy when you want those explanations to be actually true, and > >>> corrent--you have to spend time to make sure of that. > >> > >> That's why it's useful for the patch submitter to write them, asking > >> for help when necessary. > >> > >> As a bonus, it helps reviewers understand the effect of the patch. > >> Bugs averted! > > > > Yeah, that would be nice. Too bad I don't have that information, and > > have _zero_ motivation to go and get it for you. > > Just to clarify: That information is not just for Jonathan, but for > everyone on this list and those who dig the history a year down the > road. Contributors who have _zero_ motiviation to find out that > information are not welcome here because they cause friction and take > away time from many others for _zero_ gain. And me, who is trying to figure out what to do with this patch. It is presented on its own, outside of a series, with only the description "no reason not to do this". But AFAICT, it is _required_ for the tests in the remote-hg series to work. Isn't that kind of an important motivation? Yet it is not in the commit message, nor does the remote-hg series indicate that it should be built on top. Or am I wrong that the one is dependent on the other? -Peff