On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:02:48PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:

> Am 31.10.2012 03:28, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's all fun and games to write explanations for things, but it's not
> >>> that easy when you want those explanations to be actually true, and
> >>> corrent--you have to spend time to make sure of that.
> >>
> >> That's why it's useful for the patch submitter to write them, asking
> >> for help when necessary.
> >>
> >> As a bonus, it helps reviewers understand the effect of the patch.
> >> Bugs averted!
> > 
> > Yeah, that would be nice. Too bad I don't have that information, and
> > have _zero_ motivation to go and get it for you.
> Just to clarify: That information is not just for Jonathan, but for
> everyone on this list and those who dig the history a year down the
> road. Contributors who have _zero_ motiviation to find out that
> information are not welcome here because they cause friction and take
> away time from many others for _zero_ gain.

And me, who is trying to figure out what to do with this patch. It is
presented on its own, outside of a series, with only the description "no
reason not to do this". But AFAICT, it is _required_ for the tests in
the remote-hg series to work. Isn't that kind of an important

Yet it is not in the commit message, nor does the remote-hg series
indicate that it should be built on top. Or am I wrong that the one is
dependent on the other?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to