From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: [PATCH] implemented strbuf_write_or_die() Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:51:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87siqzjc1p.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <1393672871-28281-1-git-send-email-faiz.off93@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , He Sun , Faiz Kothari , git To: Eric Sunshine X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 03 20:52:00 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WKYu6-0007wi-KE for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:51:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754870AbaCCTve (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:51:34 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:59090 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754082AbaCCTvc (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:51:32 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58130 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKYtf-0002n6-2a; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:51:31 -0500 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 95134E07E8; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:51:30 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:46:12 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eric Sunshine writes: > As a potential GSoC student and newcomer to the project, Faiz would > not have known that this would be considered unwanted churn when he > chose the task from the GSoC microproject page [1]. Perhaps it would > be a good idea to retire this item from the list? > > On the other hand, it did expose Faiz to the iterative code review > process on this project and gave him a taste of what would be expected > of him as a GSoC student, so the microproject achieved that important > goal, and thus wasn't an utter failure. And the microproject has the fabulous property that we can use it over and over again to have a newcomer try committing patches: the previously reported problem that we were running out of microprojects will not occur when every patch is eventually going to be rejected. Joking aside, this is a motivational disaster. It should be retired. -- David Kastrup