Re: A note from the maintainer

From: "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A note from the maintainer
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:14:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <17bef1274bfb2614.70b1dd9aae081c6e.203dcd72f6563036@zivdesk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwmpvbufw.fsf@gitster.g>

> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> I actually meant what I wrote.
>>> 
>>> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
>>> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
>>> deserve anybody's attention.  But it is also possible that it was
>>> lost in the noise.
>>> ...
>> Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
>> wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
>> friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
>> "uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
>> attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.
> 
> You completely lost me.  How much harsh words are used before "But
> it is also possible" would not make the project sound less friendly
> at all.
> 
> Let me try again.
> 
> You see your patch was sent but did not receive any reaction.  You
> might start thinking: "hmm, perhaps my patch was so horrible" and
> you might think all the bad and harsh things about the quality of
> your patch.
> 
> But do not let such thought stop you from pinging the thread again,
> because the quality of your patch may not at all be the reason why
> you did not receive any reaction.  It could be just people were
> swamped and your patch fell into cracks, and there was nothing wrong
> with it.

Ah, okay -- I think I am better understanding the intent vs. how I
(mis)interpreted it initially. My initial interpretation was more along
the lines of "there are two possibilities: Either it was uninteresting,
or it got missed". This re-phrasing reads more as "don't assume it was
uninteresting, it may have simply been missed". Both true, but the
latter reads better in my opinion.

Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.

-- 
Thank you,
Brian Lyles