mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Johannes Schindelin <>
To: Junio C Hamano <>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:25:26 +0100 (STD)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Junio,

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <> writes:
> > If you care deeply about the commit history, I hereby offer to you to
> > clean up the built-in stash patches when you say you're ready to advance
> > them to `master`.
> What's the goal of such a rebase?

To appease you enough that you stop complaining about the current, or
previous, state of `ps/stash-in-c`.

I am genuinely interested in making this all more pleasant for you, even
if my efforts to that end show no fruit.

> To rebuild the topic as a sensible sequence of commits that logically
> builds on top of previous steps to ease later bisection and
> understanding?
> Thanks for an offer out of good intentions,, but let's move on and
> polish the tree shape at the tip of this topic.

I would be prepared to do that, but I am constantly reminded of the
unfortunate way we handled `ps/stash-in-c`, where you thought it was way
too early to move to `next`, and I am convinced that we simply were way
too late to start cooking in `next`.

So I keep offering to do work so that you would be happier, but none of my
suggestions seem to work.

> The history behind it may be messier than other segments of our history,
> and future developers may have harder time learning the intention of the
> topic when making changes on top, but this one was supposed to create a
> bug-to-bug reimplementation of the scripted version.

Right. But we moved right past that, and continued enhancing `git stash`,
(like the `--quiet` thing) and were now stuck with the unfortunate
situation that we had to do it in both built-in and scripted version.

> What matters more would be our future changes on top of this code, which
> improves what we used to have as scripted Porcelain.  They will
> genuinely be novel efforts, need to be built in logical order and
> explainable steps to help future developers.  Compared to that, so the
> history of our stumbling along the way to reach today's tip of the topic
> has much lower value.
> Besides I think it is way too late for the current topic.  We
> established before the topic hit 'next' that reviewers' eyes all
> lost freshness and patience to review another round of this series
> adequately.
> We at least know that the ordering and organization of the iteration
> we see in 'next' is crappy, because some reviewers did look at them.
> The rewrite will see no reviews, if any, far fewer and shallower
> reviews than the iteration we have; nobody would be able to say with
> confidence that the rewritten series achieves its goal of leaving a
> sensible history.  Doing so just before it hits 'master' makes it a
> sure thing.

Fine. But in that case, I would appreciate not being reminded of the
messiness. Not unless you let me do something about it. Don't put me
between a rock and a hard place, please.

> Let's just we all admit that we did a poor job when we decided to
> push this topic to 'next' before it was ready, and learn the lesson
> to avoid haste making waste for the future topics.

Quite honestly, I am at a loss what you are suggesting here. The original
contributor (Paul) got unexpectedly busy with university, so he was not
able to take care of any updates.

I would have made those updates (I promised, after all), but at some stage
it felt more logical to explain in add-on topics what breakages were
introduced by the built-in rewrite and fix them: squashing the fixes in
would have made it less obvious why certain changes had to be done that
way (after all, I missed in the original dozens of reviews, pre-submission
and post-submission, e.g. the ORIG_HEAD problems).

But you did not complain about me adding on top back then, so I do not
understand why you complain about it now...

I am more than willing to move on, but if we keep repeating how messy the
current state is and do not even come up with a way how we could handle
this better in the future, then I do not really feel that we *are* moving
on after all.


> Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-11 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-07 15:29 [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-03-07 15:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] legacy stash: fix "rudimentary backport of -q" Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-03-11  7:27   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-07 15:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] built-in stash: handle :(glob) pathspecs again Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-03-11  7:28   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-11 16:27     ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-11 22:19       ` Thomas Gummerer
2019-03-08  1:37 ` [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again Junio C Hamano
2019-03-08 16:12   ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-10  0:56     ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-11 16:25       ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2019-03-18  4:39         ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-18  7:02           ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).