From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subject: Re: Subtree in Git Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:44:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4F9FA029.7040201@initfour.nl> <87fwbgbs0h.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <7v8vh78dag.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4FA82799.1020400@initfour.nl> <87bokpxqoq.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <4FD89383.70003@initfour.nl> <50830374.9090308@initfour.nl> <7vbofwgwso.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <5084102A.2010006@initfour.nl> <7vfw57fvtl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Herman van Rink , , "Hilco Wijbenga" , Git Users To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 22 16:47:29 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 1TQJHq-0002F2-OS for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:47:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754737Ab2JVOrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:47:15 -0400 Received: from exprod6og114.obsmtp.com ([64.18.1.33]:44183 "EHLO exprod6og114.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753871Ab2JVOrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:47:15 -0400 Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIVca6IhCZWiJokrJ2ozwPczxWtCF9Mr@postini.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:47:14 PDT Received: from transit.us.cray.com (172.31.17.53) by CFWEX01.americas.cray.com (172.30.88.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:44:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7vfw57fvtl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:51:02 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > I haven't formed an opinion on the particular change as to how bad > its collapsing unrelated changes into a single change is. Maybe they > are not as unrelated and form a coherent whole. Maybe not. It is difficult for me to tell which is one of the red flags that caused me to request breaking it up. It's much to hard to review this patch as it is. It conflates multiple features and bug fixes. It includes comments to the effect of, "I don't like this but I don't know of a better way." Part of the reson we do reviews is to have people help out and find a better way. I don't think people can do that with the way the patch is currently structured. > Note that I was not following the thread very closely, so I may have > misread the discussion. I read his "Unless Junio accepts..." to > mean "I (dag) still object, but if Junio accepts that patch I object > to directly, there is nothing I can do about it". That is very > different from "I am on the fence and cannot decide it is a good > patch or not. I'll let Junio decide; I am OK as long as he is". Yopur first reading is the correct one. -David