Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Clearly, a lot of my patches have not been reviewed ... > > I think the reason for it most likely is because you earned the Bozo > bit ($gmane/227602) in many reviewers' eyes.
So what you are saying is that the reason is entirely personal, not technical. Is that correct? However, it is funny how Theodore Ts'o is saying so in that mail, yet at the same time he is actively engaged in at least two discussions started by me in two different projects (Linux and isync) just last week. > I phrased it differently ($gmane/233347) at the beginning of this > cycle, You said: --- It seems that Matthew is trying to see if you can work better with others than before after a break, but I personally am not hopeful yet and do not want to waste my/our time on flamewars like we saw in the past. --- By which you presumably are referring to this patch series: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/233295/focus=233306 It seems to me there's no negative fallout from that thread, and Matthieu Moy still thinks this is a good series, yet you haven't applied it, or even commented on it. > but I'll say it one more time. I'll refrain from responding > to your messages with anything other than "looks good, thanks". A > patch from you that I do not understand the motivation behind it, or > a patch from you that attempts to solve a problem I see better ways > of solving the same, will not see the usual response from me that > requests a clarification (in the resulting code or in its > explanation in the proposed commit log message) or suggests an > improvement or an alternative. So, what you are saying is that if none of my 160 patches have been picked yet, it means you will not be picking them, even though you are not explicitly saying so. Is that correct? Even if other Git developers agree it's a good change, you will not be picking them. Correct? > Such a review comment and the discussion that follows it after a > patch is posted is an essential part of the collaborative > development process in this community and it has helped the quality > of our end product. We unfortunately saw time and again that the > process rarely works when the discussion involves your patches. No, you did not. What you saw was a person that unlike a trained dog, argued against you. And apparently your definition of a good discussion is one in which the other person just does what you say, and doesn't argue back. Let me be clear; what I did is provide arguments against your arguments, which means all I did was disagree. That is all. > I haven't caught up with the list traffic yet, but the way the > discussion that followed a recent review ($gmane/235936) progressed > tells me that things haven't improved much, so the assessment above > still seems to hold true, at least to me. I applied the change requested in ($gmane/235936), so there is no more comments left on that series, there's nothing that prevents that series from being picked, yet it's not. Presumably you have a problem with that series, but you haven't spoken, and you won't, even though it's not just me that is waiting for a response, but other Git developers (and users) who are interested in moving this forward. Anyway, I spent a lot of time working on those 160 patches, I would appreciate if you could respond to this single question: Are the patches going to be applied? Yes or no. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
