From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't ignore write failure from git-diff, git-log, etc. Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <87bqg724gp.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87odk6y6cd.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87sl9hw0o0.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <871wh0ww80.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87r6ozs7q5.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jim Meyering X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 29 23:20:40 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ht97Q-0007B9-3J for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 23:20:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751289AbXE2VUT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 17:20:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753158AbXE2VUS (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 17:20:18 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.13]:52831 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751327AbXE2VUP (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 17:20:15 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l4TLJfT0018731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 May 2007 14:19:43 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l4TLJfRC011699; Tue, 29 May 2007 14:19:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87r6ozs7q5.fsf@rho.meyering.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.631 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,OSDL_HEADER_SUBJECT_BRACKETED,PATCH_SUBJECT_OSDL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.12__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.179 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.13 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 29 May 2007, Jim Meyering wrote: > > > > Maybe you have not noticed, but my argument has ben about EPIPE. > > Ha ha. That's a good one. > The point was that even you must see that your > "[Jim's] WHOLE patch is crap" statement was wrong. Ehh. That's a rather edited version of what I said, isn't it? That's after I explicitly _quoted_ the part where you actively removed the code that said "EPIPE is right", and also after I had told you several times that you should consider EPIPE as a special case in your other part. In other words, yes, EVERY SINGLE HUNK of your patch was wrong, and I had told you exactly why. How wrong does a patch have to be to be "crap"? Maybe I have higher standards than you do (apparently so), but "every single hunk was wrong" should certainly be a damn good reason to consider _any_ patch crap, wouldn't you say? And now you have trouble accepting that, even after you have sent out a fixed patch without the crap. Thanks for finally bothering to get the patch right, but I don't see why you have to try to make-believe that it was ever about anything but EPIPE. So go back and read my emails. You'll see that in every single one I made it very clear that EPIPE was special. From the very first one (where I didn't call your patch crap, btw: I said it was wrong, and that some errors are expected and good, and I explicitly told you about EPIPE). So what did you do? Instead of acknowledging that EPIPE was different, you actually *expanded* on that original patch, and made the other places where we _did_ handle EPIPE correctly, and made those places handle it _incorrectly_. And then you expect me to be _polite_ about it? Grow up. I was polite before you started explicitly doing the reverse of what I told you you should do. At that point, your patch went from "meant well, but the patch was wrong" to "That's just obviously crap". Linus