From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD942047F for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:37:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751950AbdHGVhD (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:37:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:60384 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751589AbdHGVhC (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:37:02 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BF8A0A41; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:37:01 -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=tE9irWROfXJiropYShKo71F0+O0=; b=uoAkOp jhC+W7CTwsJUFPuY2UpS7jaMN4oCX52X7SbBW9Qk7wGEGr+6/a1ImqaLtBSY2wO+ fz/cSGylwpEs/qg/pCnU1RUZtUXDkyRl7Y266UA3EwYkuzPAJzQ9J8YvpUJeQKl7 pVC1Ted4tjwtg/MtMkRUTZhuvufq7kDmUIzAk= 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=G9kJm3H5LR24mZURVIX0/A/2m0BHbZCI yCDWUSzADzv+wvCO+sLsaSls4Djv2CTxQfK0umtlTeFnxc32FDEBRuN9c4/GKjqu AP7FHiDV37O2l+ex/npgBCrS9jEp1IM4NqPm2pXIHvsOejkKZMZWOlGGFaAr27pJ A0CqKXvOt0M= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A59A0A40; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C9CBA0A3E; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:37:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Martin Koegler , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows References: <1502129437-31226-1-git-send-email-martin@mail.zuhause> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:36:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 7 Aug 2017 23:10:39 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8BA6CAEA-7BB8-11E7-8C40-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu` > for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before > even considering it for `pu`? > > Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned > long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the > rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for > it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too > freely and too deliberately. This is not about where the bar is set. It is about expectation. I do not expect much from occasional (or new) contributors and I try not to demand too much from them. The consequence is that as long as a small patch makes things better without making anything worse, I'd want to be inclusive to encourage them to build obvious improvements on top. Maybe they just want a single patch landed to fix their immediate needs (which may be generic enough and expected to be shared with many other people) without going further, so I may end up queuing something that only helps 40% of people until follow up patches are done to cover the remaining 60% of people, but that is fine as long as the patch does not make things worse (it is not like a patch that helps 40% while hurting the remaining 60% until a follow-up happens). I would expect a lot more from experienced contributors, when I know they are capable of helping the remaining 60% inside the same series and without requiring too much hand-holding from me. The same thing I cannot say to a occasional (or new) contributor---they may not be coorperative, or they may be willing to do more but may require more help polishing their work than the bandwidth I can afford. So if you are volunteering to help by either guiding Martin to aim higher and make this a series with a larger and more complete scope, I'd very much appreciate it. Or you can do a follow-up series on top of what Martin posted. Either is fine by me. Just do not step on each others' toes ;-) I avoided saying all of the above because I didn't want my word taken out of context later to make it sound as if I were belittling the competence of Martin, but you seem to want to force me to say this, so here it is.