Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:

> Why should I lie in the patch?  The terminal flipping was a very big
> itch I had, and the patch fixes exactly that issue.  Showing the real
> branch name was an unintended side-effect.
> I just said "early" and showed a nice end-user example in which it
> works, not "theoretically impossible to race with".  Better wording
> (while not lying about the motivation behind the patch)?

The patch may have been done by a wrong motivation, in that it does
not fundamentally "fix" the itch.  The particular "itch" is not
something we are going to promise to the end users, ever, anyway.

The only remaining justification for the change is, even though the
user cannot _safely_ flip the branches with this patch, it improves
the output.

That does not make the patch wrong, but the original motivation is
an irrelevant, lost cause.  "Even though this started to address an
itch, the patch does not fundamentally fix that itch at all." may be
a honest statement to make, but that alone is not a justification to
have this change.

The "side effect" is the only improvement this patch gives us, and
that happens to be a good enough justification.  At that point, is
the original itch the patch does not correctly address even worth
mentioning?  I answered "no" to that question.

So I do not think you are lying anything.
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