archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felipe Contreras <>
To: Philip Oakley <>
Subject: Re: My patches
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:33:22 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5247B8D59AAE41F3A0D8BF165D2C2BAE@PhilipOakley>

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Philip Oakley <> wrote:
> From: "Felipe Contreras" <>
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:24 AM

>> Clearly, a lot of my patches have not been reviewed properly, so even
>> though they are technically correct, and would benefit users, some have
>> specifically been requested by them, and at least one would
>> significantly improve Git's user interface...

> Given you have put a lot of work into your 16 patch series, is there any
> particular order, or grouping that would help their review.

I ordered them in order of importance, and chance of being merged. For
example, the first patch series 'branch: improve verbose option' is
relatively simple, it improves things significantly, and other
developers have already argued this is the way to go. The last one
'sha1-name: refactor get_sha1() parsing' doesn't have much of a chance
of being merged, it's quite complicated, there isn't any particular
change that is visible to the users, and there isn't probably much

> With so many patches to consider one (the reviewer(s)) gains another task of
> simply trying to prioritise the patches (usually one can take big decisions
> by simply remebering who's series one was interested in).
> I expect the clean-ups and 'trivials's' can be managed separately from the
> 'improvements', which would again be separate from the "satging" and "Ruby"
> philosophical discussions.

Maybe, but the trivial patches have a higher chance of being merged
than 'Massive improvents to rebase and cherry-pick' or 'Support for
Ruby', that's why I put them first.

>>   they are going nowhere.
> I wouldn't expect 100% success. Every now and again one hears of the "here's
> some patches I've had in my tree for a while" that probably had the same
> early frustrations - they just feel worse the more you produce.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, I have contributed to lots of open source
projects. However, we are not talking about a couple of patches that
now and again get lost, we are talking about 160 patches, some which
have gone through several (even ten) iterations. I think that is


Felipe Contreras

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-12 22:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-12  7:24 My patches Felipe Contreras
2013-10-12 16:18 ` Philip Oakley
2013-10-12 22:33   ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2013-10-14 17:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-14 21:40   ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-17 19:54     ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-17 21:44       ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-18 11:21         ` Max Horn
2013-10-18 11:41           ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-18 15:30             ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-10-18 15:49               ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-18 16:59               ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).