From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] test: tests for the "double > from mailmap" bug Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:14:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1329235894-20581-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20120214203431.GB13210@burratino> <20120214211402.GC23291@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8vk55a99.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vzkcl3u9o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 15 00:15:06 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 1RxRaS-0003ol-RX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:15:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932657Ab2BNXO7 convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:14:59 -0500 Received: from mail-lpp01m020-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:48870 "EHLO mail-lpp01m020-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932622Ab2BNXO6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:14:58 -0500 Received: by lbom4 with SMTP id m4so229121lbo.19 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:14:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yDA9vdvehQGE0fYw+L/80T5bzb8u041uG9a3SHbNAFA=; b=HGsmqr9xOb9sNHD9KhbVVk1+c/PK3cMSedjt5bBX2ueqbovxV79sa9rNx+ArJXKJbl R1hAMjwPAdI6ahrTb4xOR/cKJY/rg4/9aywfN3wIByy/W311TOf+bfjrzRkak3mgj3Th P+qrTq7uzSIHUn5n+wcGmapf6GhSlnSIBMrsA= Received: by 10.152.128.230 with SMTP id nr6mr13938582lab.27.1329261297281; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:14:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.41.73 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:14:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7vzkcl3u9o.fsf@alter.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 15, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Junio C Hamano wr= ote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Junio C Hamano = wrote: >> >> And I don't understand why people want the obvious to be explained. > > Has it ever occurred to you the reason why people ask questions to yo= u is > perhaps because something that is obvious to you who wrote the patch = is > not obvious at all to others? =C2=A0Has it also occurred to you that = the > majority of people who need to understand the patch during the review= and > 6 months down the road in "git log" output are not *you*? Yes, that's why I am still listening. However I have not yet found a question that cannot be answered from the simple description, except the one you brought and I agreed to tackle. I would like to think I have the capacity of empathy, so I would be able to see if something cannot be inferred from the commit message. Of course, I might be wrong, but so far the feedback has not been "no, it's not obvious", but rather " yes, it's obvious... but...". >> Your new point is "you can add a new thing that we did not have, but >> it would not result in a good addition if that new thing is >> irrelevant", but you already know what is the new thing from the >> summary "'git blame -e' tests". > > It is not a "new point". =C2=A0Jonathan, Peff and I all never said th= at it is > unclear "what" your patch adds. =C2=A0The suggestions for improvement= given in > this thread were all to explain "why" better. I have heard both. And the "why" can be easily inferred, at least on the first patch. The second one I yet have to fix, as I already replied to you. >> Everybody seems to assume that a simple commit message =3D bad. I di= sagree. > > If you find *everybody* seems to disagree with you, it would help to > consider a slight possibility that you *might* be wrong. =C2=A0And "s= imple" is > not necessarily "sufficient and simple". Of course, it's *possible*, but ad populum is not a valid argument. There's many projects out there, and very few have as verbose commit messages as git. I do not say they are doing it better, as many times a lot of the verbose commit messages do help, but I don't think this is the case. Looking at the latest commits in the Linux kernel show good examples of simple commit messages. Albeit they might be a bit "too simple", my point that they do have a different view on what is "sufficient and simple": http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=3Dcomm= it;h=3D27c3afe6e1cf129faac90405121203962da08ff4 http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=3Dcomm= it;h=3D0d86f65ed0b727daa06d3aa176314cd175323db6 http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=3Dcomm= it;h=3D10f296cbfe3b93188c41463fd7a53808ebdbcbe3 Of course, what is "sufficient and simple" depends on a case by case basis, but I wonder, if there's any case in which a single line in the commit message summary would suffice, wouldn't adding missing inconspicuous tests for something be it? >> ... And I already pointed out the double standards. > > Sorry, but the absolute uniform standards do not exist, unless you ar= e > living in a fantasy land. =C2=A0I expect better from list regulars as= new > contributors will inevitably learn from their behaviour (we also lear= n > from our past mistakes). Of course, but I can't help but wonder... Why so much fuss for simple tests? And why you didn't bother to add tests for your new code as well? Cheers. --=20 =46elipe Contreras