Junio C Hamano wrote:
> In other words, I knew that you are capable enough to track down a
> bug in the code you wrote recently that made it violate the
> expectation you defined in your own tests.

Wrong. The code in question was not recent, it was introdued in 1.8.3,
more than one year ago.

And wrong, it didn't violate the expectation of my own tests.

The code was simply not exercised in the tests.

> There was no room for differences of opinions to come into play, as it
> was just between you and your own code.
> Why would I expect otherwise?

Because most people take attacks on their code as personal attacks, and
they don't fix bugs in their code if they don't like the person
reporting it.

But you know I don't take attacks on my code and ideas personally, which
is more that can be said of most people on the list.

> Do you want to make it a separate follow-up patch with a log message
> that explains why it now uses LookupError (not ManifestLookupError),
> or do you want to reroll the original by squashing it?

I don't want to do anything for a "contrib" tool.

It's already broken in v2.0 anyway.

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

Reply via email to