From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] git put: an alternative to add/reset/checkout Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:10:57 -0800 Message-ID: <7vaa5e9tn2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20110607200659.GA6177@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Scott Chacon , Jakub Narebski , Matthieu Moy To: mike@nahas.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 23 19:11:08 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RpOMF-0007mK-G4 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:11:07 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753251Ab2AWSLB (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:11:01 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:47967 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890Ab2AWSLA (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:11:00 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730166AA3; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:10:59 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=u2PmPobJoQwm7Q3kmgXTbrPLn1M=; b=qmPmnk BXHmRd8zuVEXGcJ7c59HXDwKIRftj42O8gYINOwQ/TePkNtTZq1vuykD/+2RkW6i VjOJTBk3DxMD3cNGaVJZ6pHFvQ762Z9gSmeYOjpitwDcgSMueOwVs5eWzthntXn+ 6H5clcDU9+CbTd/0GQ9cbrXAAOyGOL482k77k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lNt/huKi2tO11WpSkXy9ik3usLYqdtPs 7xS8hdQ94soc1QwfwqV64sTiiDxhnA5TgeG6cPoZuIVSIsLKzRU5AEogz4gaiiJK p0xFzrNkXFOcRUmEy1ZSuEodXSye8SVtQ0SX8cQE/jhYhCISvHG9fIhoYq5BMYTD gu88eariuoc= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6890E6AA2; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA9BA6AA1; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:10:58 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Michael Nahas's message of "Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:56:37 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 99D7C620-45ED-11E1-8C5A-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael Nahas writes: > It obviously isn't the design-first-then-find-a-willing-programmer of > the project I ran. I don't know if it's the IETF's "running code and > a general consensus". These two are not necessarily incompatible. A proposed new feature needs to be explained well, describing in what situation it will help what kind of users and without hurting others and why it is a worthy addition. We require a general consensus that any proposed change is a worthy addition, and a working code is often a good addition to help us reaching one, because people can guess what is being proposed even when the idea is presented poorly. A poorly presented idea without working code often fares no better than just a handwaving with crazy talk, as you fail to make others realize what you are trying to achieve. But working code is not a requirement to present good ideas. It just helps to add clarity to it.