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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, 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 62E0C1F9E5 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:24:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231220AbhFOJ0r (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:26:47 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55754 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231146AbhFOJ0q (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:26:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 7170 invoked by uid 109); 15 Jun 2021 09:24:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:24:41 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 12119 invoked by uid 111); 15 Jun 2021 09:24:43 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:24:43 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:24:40 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Felipe Contreras Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Johannes Sixt , Sergey Organov , Junio C Hamano , Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] xdiff: implement a zealous diff3 Message-ID: References: <20210613143155.836591-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <60c647c1d9b5c_41f452089@natae.notmuch> <60c82a622ae66_e5292087f@natae.notmuch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <60c82a622ae66_e5292087f@natae.notmuch> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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. But much more important, in my opinion: that you would dismiss without further investigation a report of a bug from the one person who actually had experience running with the patch implies a level of carelessness that I'm not comfortable with for the project. I had already given up on having substantive discussion with you, but I had hoped I could help the project by pointing out relevant facts in areas that you were working in. But if a simple statement like "this segfaulted for me" is not even useful, then I don't see much point in communicating with you at all. -Peff