On 29 April 2014 13:32:29 GMT+10:00, Felipe Contreras
>James Denholm wrote:
>> No, true, but my point was more related to that it's ones own "task",
>> perhaps being the better term than job, to debate the merits of one's
>>own work when the merits are currently unknown to the rest of a
>It's still the same thing. Nobody gets assigned any tasks; people
>own tasks, and they might choose tasks that other people were doing.
Right. Instead of bashing about in the haberdashery of
misinterpretation, allow me to explicitly restate my original
You cannot expect that anybody but yourself is willing to propose,
debate the merits of and otherwise defend patches that you
have authored (herein "your patches", implying
authorship, not ownership).
Some people *may*, but if they do not or do not successfully,
that does not imply the stagnation of the project.
Ultimately, the only person who can ensure that a patch is
championed, and the only person who need feel a
responsibility to, is the author, and that responsibility
is only ever to themselves.
TL,DR: Champion your own patches, don't ask others to.
>> > It's not Jeff's patches, they are our patches, they are part of the
>> > And it's not unusual for multiple people working on a patch series;
>> > doing most of the work, another adding tests, another cleaning
>> > It's also no unheard of from a person picking up a patch series
>> > stopped working on.
>> This, of course, would be the _other_ case where a proposal's
>> merits are already known and accepted by the community.
>No. John might have sent a patch series X, and maybe he didn't explain
>correctly how it would benefit the project. Later on Mark finds out how
>patches would be useful for himself and takes upon himself to get them
>so he cleans them up and send an updated version with a clear
>how they would be useful.
>It's still the same proposal X, but a different person and a different
>to get them merged.
>In other words, the fact that the community has not yet accepted the
>an approach doesn't mean that another person cannot champion it.
As addressed above.
>> The default may be wrong, you and I might agree that the default is
>> wrong, Junio and Torvalds and RMS and The Queen of England
>> might all agree that the default is wrong... But if we all live
>> from a bread shop, it's going to be a difficult task for you to
>> us to go hunting.
>It doesn't matter if you want to go hunting and I want to buy bread,
>of those is better than starving to death.
>In the Git project though, we choose to starve to death. Neither were
>patches picked, nor did anybody else step up with a different proposal,
>did nothing, which is what we always do.
Not at all. Hunting may necessitate a negative side
effect, such as betraying vegetarianism, having to go out
into the jungle for five days, risk life and limb, and (worse
yet) sleep in a tent. This is an especially poor decision if we
honestly would prefer a loaf of bread, and we just need to find
a way across the street.
And again, I'm referring to the general case here, but of your
views of what the solution should be clash with what the
community view is, you're not going to be able to convince
the community to go hunting. To tie in with the above, you
sure aren't going to be able to if you don't engage in logical,
calm, reasonable discourse.
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