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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID 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 1C46B1F6DC for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:55:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751064AbdBAWzO (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:55:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:33296 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750885AbdBAWzN (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:55:13 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id e4so32710070pfg.0 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:55:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=A3Wp05v39OkoXKjhv6J+U+EoBNLZvPHFqByx/lI/Bzw=; b=obJ8rUdVbZJO0T+e/xoaUdqvAuuqG6fe81cDIA0P/dVUAAsAip23+0w1lBLm2LGP0l xLY30CLnscJHJ0jylTTiX8CEXWJJsEoXHnZbG6foek99IizaqAWiGcTHdjgflmmH2n4T 1du6/rqBMkoI9Nzn+a02VaslFfvEX/q0u/d0TLH4/obsVKfazSxe+6XH5nJuBZ0eiK92 pjN7LV3fjh6JeCOsH6pTCpxPfxflqIzLTaMomUoA5GWM9YL85997UI4E8Yql4mJSgNDI gYbEUOuDrx+vFs3JCI+C7uioOTQNUVECThzvt7U0wfdwiyYYZIbwE9G/WjvXVkOFUsYc BsKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=A3Wp05v39OkoXKjhv6J+U+EoBNLZvPHFqByx/lI/Bzw=; b=RcBTNbBFVXE7/2zkHU7HXbsxcGGdy/RQwCtina89jAXICyJR3ySiGWlWbi0cgHeTQt nNPyw8PwzfeHbJqx4uQV4m815Mw8oFj8foQHBzUyyndIXDFzM8HiMmHQ5V7iMgSj3PpE fUJcNHyYKrmzFtQEszQHHYU+zH7+zropIUTolfAOrPBi5FWLqyLV25+snu9mfpWxxjT6 Yl/HRLA4DqSCnebUijIULF9E0iY6SVq3V7lWullFwDf1l9Ukrpn8kxwH3Ld6IO8oNlR3 P1+ELOtZnw0lOVPGO9VGrTmhSzHV1XYnhqrYgULVv/UKrRwKdWbzNlIepgK5keWb88AE zqbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXImuqqLJl4qVtlvRURML6ZI2dOBNpHAXn+rp1rqXO/+AFNFZRY7H7leG9gIvEG8KQ== X-Received: by 10.84.238.1 with SMTP id u1mr7989304plk.174.1485989713100; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:25a6:b4bd:905a:8303]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l22sm52618700pgc.43.2017.02.01.14.55.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:55:12 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Handle PuTTY (plink/tortoiseplink) even in GIT_SSH_COMMAND References: Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:55:11 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:17:54 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> Compared to the correctness issue, these are much harder to spot by >> the submitter alone, who focused so intensely to get his code >> "correct". The review process is of greater value to spot these >> issues. > > We will never agree on this. That's too bad. > From my perspective, design, explanation and maintainability are a > consequence of making it easy for reviewers to spot where the code is > incorrect. > > And correctness is not covered by "the submitter tested this". Correctness > includes all the corner cases, where the "many eyes make bugs shallow" > really shines. > > I'd rather have reviewers find bugs than users. I'd rather have submitters find bugs than reviewers. > I will *never* be a fan of a review process that pushes correctness to a > back seat (yes, it is much harder than spotting typos or lines longer than > 80 columns per row, but the ultimate goal is to deliver value to the end > user, not to make life easy for the maintainer). Did I ever say correctness is pushed to a back seat? I said that it is easier to spot correctness issues for you as a submitter than other kinds of issues without outside help (and implied that if you are a diligent contributor, you should aim for, and you should be able to achieve, a patch series where correctness issues do not need to be pointed out). But other higher level issues are harder for any submitter to spot (regardless of experience and competence of the submitter), because one gets so married to one's own code, design and worldview. And that is why "review is primarily to spot bugs" can never be a correct viewpoint. A reviewee needs to be prepared to accept review comments on higher level issues, even more readily than comments on correctness issues, because it is too easy to be constrained by early decisions one has already made while preparing a patch series and become blind to bigger picture after staring one's own new code for number of hours. Higher level issues can be more easily spotted by reviewers, whose eyes are still fresh to the series.