From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074F81F5AE for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231214AbhFOK0O (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 06:26:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38182 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231220AbhFOK0N (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 06:26:13 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 470BBC061574 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id r16so17255164oiw.3 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:24:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pgeebM6pG83TaxfP1ycqnhzAIy39Ziq79ETq3Eqp/Bk=; b=A9q01+fcV43MzmisR2CSn5fRX0kcEk5zw4JksurE/mXebk1ZRcPgI/nUz/Gi3n1Naa VT98z9uzDbBEDFTUrE2UyrByqEvS1Kww3v5lGu4DQ90b+eL8eSN74va8qiqYDD1O/f3B XNHaABg+9b34CZ3d+2+Onib8jqsaqGkiNeCgCgEBZbXjOIY74q32QaO3YpWqRGnh1Uq7 g3DFm4wRS3n/v3BvNXiDCVA3a3FI2jeA7rN7hdcvlaJXCl9dgsn/UU8pW4vOYNEUq8X/ Hp1hIw4ZcdVUNZLJytEzC2gzXZDdFS6Obh1D4IzfwAKnsSmTFFQYX9Tx1bCRzDxxsVVG m01w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pgeebM6pG83TaxfP1ycqnhzAIy39Ziq79ETq3Eqp/Bk=; b=easte6jlK06JSA5XsCgT3Gg3XWB2jevdNvqiUU94m4jgicH8M8hjQOIBzT3SDG73S4 vSpnyjWGNV/dhqeTJEGYMeKa8AIMZl7k7KwgChk6/G0MHK/spQV2KmjMoNemo47Af37X LYXHAQStCHtsVQNFUChRwU78eDg7ARpn5cVLxLHXSW8F5v7kiMKF2PbRTtCaUERoaqip aidz8IFTWM81jly7r6anmgtghjryBHhXK8dH7bZh8FuiqGsNhi150rqU9lYRy9UKQBKV Tlt2iykRCPyLbtoBPs0WUfoQmmmrNeJaAf3TyeRNM3OS3OkJ+wbTgUcVT1UjI5WlWfxk cS9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531twExr5G4ZuXanXdQwDW6us3nV17ebtcibgW0pMm+HCMiYtcnL ZGJSgYTk6Knr2H4wGesUsRI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJzoI9vQFbCqmz96AQTxRlh/SdVGFYOOrYbuL7E8Z4yPDgm1Y0ZsiczsbIrl/wC9sOs4yamQ== X-Received: by 2002:aca:4bd7:: with SMTP id y206mr14025404oia.40.1623752648616; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fixed-187-188-155-231.totalplay.net. [187.188.155.231]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 16sm3606855oie.33.2021.06.15.03.24.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:24:06 -0500 From: Felipe Contreras To: Jeff King , Felipe Contreras Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Johannes Sixt , Sergey Organov , Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?VXdlIEtsZWluZS1Lw7ZuaWc=?= Message-ID: <60c87fc6a87ba_e6332084f@natae.notmuch> In-Reply-To: References: <20210613143155.836591-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <60c647c1d9b5c_41f452089@natae.notmuch> <60c82a622ae66_e5292087f@natae.notmuch> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:19:46PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > My point is that if you are going to repost a patch that has known > > > problems, > > > > It was not known that it had problems. > > > > That fact that person X said patch Y had a problem doesn't necessarily > > mean that patch Y has a problem. > > > > 1. The problem in the past might not apply in the present > > 2. The problem X person had might be specific to his/her setup > > 3. The problem might be due a combination of patches, not the patch > > itself > > > > Plus many others. > > > > A logical person sees evidence for what it is, and the only thing that > > person X saying patch Y had a problem means, is that person X said patch > > Y had a problem. > > Wow. > > For one thing, you could still relay the _report_ of a problem along > with the patch, which would be valuable information for reviewers. Yes I could have, and knowing what I know now I wouldn't even have even posted the patch (not without a proposed fix). Woulda, coulda, shoulda. But that's not the point. The point is that I did not repost a patch with known problems *today*. Nor did I know what kind of problems, or how pervasive the issue was. Presumably you had to try at least 2,500 merges to find *one* issue. I ran all the tests for diff3 with zdiff3 and they passed without problems. Merging this patch would have: 1. Not broken any tests 2. Not changed any behavior for any user 3. Not have caused any problem for the vast majority (> 99%) of people trying out zdiff3 So there was no carelessness here. Moreover, I provied the patch at 9:30, at 10:42 you commented about the segfault, and 16:24 I had the fix. On a Sunday. If this is not caring, I don't know what is. -- Felipe Contreras