From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] git-cherry-pick: Add ignore-if-made-empty option [v2] Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:20:24 -0700 Message-ID: <7vvcld3bc7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1333136922-12872-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1333654745-7898-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1333654745-7898-4-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <7vobr551vs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120405234527.GB8654@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Phil Hord To: Neil Horman X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 06 03:20:34 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 1SFxqr-0008By-CX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 03:20:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756997Ab2DFBU2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:20:28 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:64265 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753645Ab2DFBU1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:20:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8381686D; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0400 (EDT) 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=AqOMleno7+b2FqFTgALA7YOotlg=; b=GMRBOQ HZZWfb5mFXeEBYxs41q9nYOWT0Da6w060p3k4sKVQ86vVRU/KlT9SV+BQgSjzfPw xAHeJrEJDQuLrkhECkoeFJwTIh89JJ6BGFaOlQ2JhmOhRqnpoCl5hJTaxSKDQiTc 3jHnC6sOBnYhQBdhKrGcogcGLAZ2gDcSvmj8g= 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=KCmlpR+q/ZjJDytFiPOytvx9gNV1qujf aZAdRe56UJ3B0Q9OmEDFVjs9UQBdr/X4uQCsDz91GaA+P17rjH1i5irbCgGrWeoR I6Z2CcZ8GwEeAxjbjQUlXwv6wImym5rEB3Jlg+LZrfBoy0Z/tRuwhAGEs2sTM1Og 4sG/0qe39uc= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9C0686C; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0400 (EDT) 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 69B80686B; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:20:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20120405234527.GB8654@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> (Neil Horman's message of "Thu, 5 Apr 2012 19:45:27 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B016B144-7F86-11E1-81C3-9DB42E706CDE-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: Neil Horman writes: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:01:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I am starting to wonder if it is worth spending time on careful reviewing, >> or it would be sufficient to give a cursory review quickly to give you >> more time to polish your re-roll. >> > I'm not sure what you think is so egregious about this changeset, but if > you have a specific problem, please let me know. There is no insult involved. I just didn't know where to start, because the series was littered with many issues from high level design (e.g. does the command line interface and API addition make sense?) to low level styles (e.g. does the new code imitate the style of the existing code around it?), and in between (e.g. pipe2() is never used in the codebase without this patch. Is it portable enough?). It was clear that it needed a lot more work to lose a WIP label (the quality standard in this project is slightly higher than "the end result seems to compile--let's ship it"). In other words, I was simply being honest. > We all make errors, thats why > we review work like this. All your comment above does is toss a purposeless > insult into the conversation. Making mistakes is one thing. Sending a series that is not sufficiently proofread is a completely different matter. The review process is not a replacement for your own proofreading. It comes after that. If you did proofread the patch [3/5], you would have noticed that the fix you made to the documentation is a fix for patch [2/5]. You are in much better position than I or other reviewers to notice it---after all, it is your addition. The same for the typo in the mysteriously named function. How else do you expect me to react to such a series?