Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[Jim Garrison]

During my initial self-education I came across the maxim "don't pull, fetch+merge instead" and have been doing that.  I think I followed most of the "pull is (mostly) evil" discussion but one facet still puzzles me: the idea that pull will do a merge "in the wrong direction" sometimes.

Do I understand correctly that this occurs only in the presence of multiple remotes?  
Can someone provide a simple example of a situation where pull would do the "wrong" thing?

Thanks

Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[David Kastrup]

Jim Garrison <jim.garrison@nwea.org> writes:

> During my initial self-education I came across the maxim "don't pull,
> fetch+merge instead" and have been doing that.  I think I followed
> most of the "pull is (mostly) evil" discussion but one facet still
> puzzles me: the idea that pull will do a merge "in the wrong
> direction" sometimes.
>
> Do I understand correctly that this occurs only in the presence of
> multiple remotes?
> Can someone provide a simple example of a situation where pull would
> do the "wrong" thing?

That's basically unavoidable.  Two opposing directions are actually part
of the same workflow usually handled by "git pull":

"Codeveloper X sends a pull request to Y who maintains the mainline.
Y executes git pull to merge X' sidebranch into the mainline."

"Codeveloper X executes git pull in order to merge the mainline from Y
back into his private sidebranch."

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[Jeff King]

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:40:28PM +0000, Jim Garrison wrote:

> During my initial self-education I came across the maxim "don't pull,
> fetch+merge instead" and have been doing that.  I think I followed
> most of the "pull is (mostly) evil" discussion but one facet still
> puzzles me: the idea that pull will do a merge "in the wrong
> direction" sometimes.
> 
> Do I understand correctly that this occurs only in the presence of
> multiple remotes?

No, it does not have to do with multiple remotes. It is about "X merged
into Y" versus "Y merged into X". The ordering of parents in a merge
doesn't matter for the merge result, but git must choose some order, and
it always uses your current HEAD first, and then the commit you are
merging second (and so on, in an octopus merge).

As a result, you can use "git log --first-parent" to follow the line of
development that always got merged into. In a strict topic-branch
workflow like git.git, this will show you just what happened on master:
a linear sequence of merges of topic branches, with occasional
direct-to-master commits like version bumps.

For an integrator who is pulling from other people, "git pull bob topic"
from "master" does the right thing: master is the first parent, and
topic is the second parent.

For somebody with a centralized repo who follows the "push was a
non-fastforward, so pull then push" advice, the merge between their work
and master will be "backwards". The merge commit will have upstream's
work (i.e., "master") merged into their topic. Following --first-parent
will walk down their work instead of the merge commits on master.

Does that explain it?

-Peff

Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[Junio C Hamano]

Jim Garrison <jim.garrison@nwea.org> writes:

> During my initial self-education I came across the maxim "don't
> pull, fetch+merge instead" and have been doing that.  I think I
> followed most of the "pull is (mostly) evil" discussion but one
> facet still puzzles me: the idea that pull will do a merge "in the
> wrong direction" sometimes.

[administrivia: wrap your lines to reasonable length like ~70 cols,
please]

> Do I understand correctly that this occurs only in the presence of
> multiple remotes?

No.  This is most often true for people who use a single repository
as a place for everybody to meet, in the same way as SVN.

Suppose that that central repository has this history:

    ---o---o---A

which ends at commit A (time flows from left to right and each node
in the graph is a commit, lines between them indicating parent-child
relationship).

Then you clone it and work on your own commits, which leads you to
have this in *your* repository:

    ---o---o---A---B---C

Imagine your coworker did the same and built on top of A in *his*
repository this history in the meantime, and then pushed it to the
central repository:

    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z

Now, if you "git push" at this point, beause your history that leads
to C lack X, Y and Z, it will fail.  You need to somehow make the
tip of your history a descendant of Z.

One way that "mostly evil" thread discusses is to "pull", which is
"fetch and then merge" (note that I am saying "don't pull, instead
fetch and merge" is not an advice to solve "pull is mostly evil"
issue at all).  If you fetch, your repository will have a history
like this:

    ---o---o---A---B---C
                \
                 X---Y---Z

And then if you did merge after that, while still on *your* branch,
i.e. C, you will create a merge M and make the history look like
this:

    ---o---o---A---B---C---M
                \         /
                 X---Y---Z

M is a descendant of Z, so you can push to update the central
repository.  Such a merge M does not lose any commit in both
histories, so in that sense it may not be wrong, but when people
would want to talk about "the authoritative canonical history that
is shared among the project participants", i.e. "the trunk", the way
they often use is to do:

    $ git log --first-parent

For all other people who observed the central repository after your
coworker pushed Z but before you pushed M, the commit on the trunk
used to be "o-o-A-X-Y-Z".  But because you made M while you were on
C, M's first parent is C, so by pushing M to advance the central
repository, you made X-Y-Z a side branch, not on the trunk.

You would rather want to have a history of this shape:

    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---M'
                \             / 
                 B-----------C

so that in the first-parent chain, it is clear that the project
first did X and then Y and then Z and merged a change that consists
of two commits B and C that achieves a single goal.  You may have
worked on fixing the bug #12345 with these two patches, and the
merge M' with swapped parents can say in its log message "Merge
'fix-bug-12345'".

Note that I said "achieves a single goal" above, because this is
important.  "swapping the merge order" only covers a special case
where the project does not care too much about having unrelated
things done on a single merge but cares a lot about first-parent
chain.

There are multiple schools of thought about the "trunk" management.

 1. Some projects want to keep a completely linear history without
    any merges.  Obviously, swapping the merge order would not help
    their taste.  You would need to flatten your history on top of
    the updated upstream to result in a history of this shape
    instead:

    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---B---C

    with "git pull --rebase" or something.

 2. Some projects tolerate merges in their history, but do not worry
    too much about the first-parent order, and allows fast-forward
    merges.  To them, swapping the merge order does not hurt, but
    it is unnecessary.

 3. Some projects want each commit on the "trunk" to do one single
    thing.  The output of "git log --first-parent" in such a project
    would show either a merge of a side branch that completes a
    single theme, or a single commit that completes a single theme
    by itself.  If your two commits B and C (or they may even be two
    groups of commits) were solving two independent issues, then the
    merge M' we made in the earlier example by swapping the merge
    order is still not up to the project standard.  It merges two
    unrelated efforts B and C at the same time.

For projects in the last category (git itself is one of them),
individual developers would want to prepare a history more like
this:

                 C0--C1--C2     topic-c
                /
    ---o---o---A                master
                \
                 B0--B1--B2     topic-b

That is, keeping separate topics on separate branches, perhaps like
so:

    $ git clone $URL work && cd work
    $ git checkout -b topic-b master
    $ ... work to create B0, B1 and B2 to complete one theme
    $ git checkout -b topic-c master
    $ ... same for the theme of topic-c

And then

    $ git checkout master
    $ git pull --ff-only

would grab X, Y and Z from the upstream and advance your master
branch:

                 C0--C1--C2
                /
    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z
                \
                 B0--B1--B2

And then you would merge these two branches separately:

    $ git merge topic-b
    $ git merge topic-c

to result in

                 C0--C1---------C2
                /                 \
    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---M---N
                \             /   
                 B0--B1-----B2

and push it back to the central repository.

It is very much possible that while you are merging topic-b and
topic-c, somebody again advanced the history in the central
repository to put W on top of Z, and make your "git push" fail.

In such a case, you would rewind to discard M and N, update the tip
of your 'master' again and redo the two merges:

    $ git reset --hard origin/master
    $ git pull --ff-only
    $ git merge topic-b
    $ git merge topic-c

                 C0--C1--------------C2
                /                     \
    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---W---M'--N
                \                 /
                 B0--B1---------B2


So one part of the solution to "pull is mostly evil" has to involve
making this "recreating your work on top of the updated upstream"
easier for users.  Otherwise, even if people *know* that rewinding
and rebuilding is the right thing to do, they will find it too
cumbersome and end up pushing merges in random order.

For another way to put this, see

    http://git-blame.blogspot.com/2012/03/fun-with-first-parent.html

HTH.

RE: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[Jim Garrison]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Junio C Hamano
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"
> 
> No.  This is most often true for people who use a single repository as a
> place for everybody to meet, in the same way as SVN.
[snip lots of excellent detail]
> HTH.

Wow.  That helps tremendously, and should be incorporated somewhere in the
Git documentation.  Thank you for your immensely detailed response.

Apologies about not breaking lines... I'll remember that in future.
	

Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[Junio C Hamano]

Jim Garrison <jim.garrison@nwea.org> writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Junio C Hamano
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"
>> 
>> No.  This is most often true for people who use a single repository as a
>> place for everybody to meet, in the same way as SVN.
> [snip lots of excellent detail]
>> HTH.
>
> Wow.  That helps tremendously, and should be incorporated somewhere in the
> Git documentation.  Thank you for your immensely detailed response.

We used to collect useful list postings in Documentation/howto/;
perhaps somebody wants to do the minimum copyediting of the message
and send a patch?

Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"

[Stephen & Linda Smith]

I'll create a patch.

On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 01:51:04 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jim Garrison <jim.garrison@nwea.org> writes:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Junio C Hamano
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"
> >> 
> >> No.  This is most often true for people who use a single repository as a
> >> place for everybody to meet, in the same way as SVN.
> > [snip lots of excellent detail]
> >> HTH.
> >
> > Wow.  That helps tremendously, and should be incorporated somewhere in the
> > Git documentation.  Thank you for your immensely detailed response.
> 
> We used to collect useful list postings in Documentation/howto/;
> perhaps somebody wants to do the minimum copyediting of the message
> and send a patch?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH] How to keep a project's canonical history correct.

[Stephen P. Smith]

During the mail thread about "Pull is mostly evil" a user asked how
the first parent could become reversed.

This howto explains how the first parent can get reversed when viewed
by the project and then explains a method to keep the history correct.

Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net>
---
 Documentation/Makefile                             |   1 +
 .../howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt       | 213 +++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 214 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index fc6b2cf..cea0e7a 100644
--- a/Documentation/Makefile
+++ b/Documentation/Makefile
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/recover-corrupted-blob-object
 SP_ARTICLES += howto/recover-corrupted-object-harder
 SP_ARTICLES += howto/rebuild-from-update-hook
 SP_ARTICLES += howto/rebase-from-internal-branch
+SP_ARTICLES += howto/keep-canonical-history-correct
 SP_ARTICLES += howto/maintain-git
 API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
 SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt b/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..927154c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
+Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 13:15:39 -0700
+Subject: Beginner question on "Pull is mostly evil"
+Abstract: This how-to explains a method for keeping a 
+ project's history correct when using git pull.
+Content-type: text/asciidoc
+
+Keep authoritative canonical history correct with git pull
+==========================================================
+
+Sometimes a new project integrator will end up with project history
+that appears to be "backwards" from what other project developers
+expect. This howto presents a suggested integration workflow for
+maintaining a central repository.
+
+Suppose that that central repository has this history:
+
+------------
+    ---o---o---A
+------------
+
+which ends at commit `A` (time flows from left to right and each node
+in the graph is a commit, lines between them indicating parent-child
+relationship).
+
+Then you clone it and work on your own commits, which leads you to
+have this history in *your* repository:
+
+------------
+    ---o---o---A---B---C
+------------
+
+Imagine your coworker did the same and built on top of `A` in *his*
+repository in the meantime, and then pushed it to the
+central repository:
+
+------------
+    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z
+------------
+
+Now, if you "git push" at this point, beause your history that leads
+to `C` lacks `X`, `Y` and `Z`, it will fail.  You need to somehow make
+the tip of your history a descendant of `Z`.
+
+One suggested way to solve the problem is "fetch and then merge", aka
+"git pull". When you fetch, your repository will have a history like
+this:
+
+------------
+    ---o---o---A---B---C
+                \
+                 X---Y---Z
+------------
+
+Once you run merge after that, while still on *your* branch, i.e. `C`,
+you will create a merge `M` and make the history look like this:
+
+------------
+    ---o---o---A---B---C---M
+                \         /
+                 X---Y---Z
+------------
+
+`M` is a descendant of `Z`, so you can push to update the central
+repository.  Such a merge `M` does not lose any commit in both
+histories, so in that sense it may not be wrong, but when people want
+to talk about "the authoritative canonical history that is shared
+among the project participants", i.e. "the trunk", the way they often
+use is to do:
+
+------------
+    $ git log --first-parent
+------------
+
+For all other people who observed the central repository after your
+coworker pushed `Z` but before you pushed `M`, the commit on the trunk
+used to be `o-o-A-X-Y-Z`.  But because you made `M` while you were on
+`C`, `M`'s first parent is `C`, so by pushing `M` to advance the
+central repository, you made `X-Y-Z` a side branch, not on the trunk.
+
+You would rather want to have a history of this shape:
+
+------------
+    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---M'
+                \             /
+                 B-----------C
+------------
+
+so that in the first-parent chain, it is clear that the project first
+did `X` and then `Y` and then `Z` and merged a change that consists of
+two commits `B` and `C` that achieves a single goal.  You may have
+worked on fixing the bug #12345 with these two patches, and the merge
+`M'` with swapped parents can say in its log message "Merge
+'fix-bug-12345'". Having a way to tell "git pull" to create a merge
+but record the parents in reverse order may be a way to do so.
+
+Note that I said "achieves a single goal" above, because this is
+important.  "swapping the merge order" only covers a special case
+where the project does not care too much about having unrelated
+things done on a single merge but cares a lot about first-parent
+chain.
+
+There are multiple schools of thought about the "trunk" management.
+
+ 1. Some projects want to keep a completely linear history without any
+    merges.  Obviously, swapping the merge order would not match their
+    taste.  You would need to flatten your history on top of the
+    updated upstream to result in a history of this shape instead:
++
+------------
+    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---B---C
+------------
++
+    with `git pull --rebase` or something.
+
+ 2. Some projects tolerate merges in their history, but do not worry
+    too much about the first-parent order, and allow fast-forward
+    merges.  To them, swapping the merge order does not hurt, but
+    it is unnecessary.
+
+ 3. Some projects want each commit on the "trunk" to do one single
+    thing.  The output of `git log --first-parent` in such a project
+    would show either a merge of a side branch that completes a single
+    theme, or a single commit that completes a single theme by itself.
+    If your two commits `B` and `C` (or they may even be two groups of
+    commits) were solving two independent issues, then the merge `M'`
+    we made in the earlier example by swapping the merge order is
+    still not up to the project standard.  It merges two unrelated
+    efforts `B` and `C` at the same time.
+
+For projects in the last category (Git itself is one of them),
+individual developers would want to prepare a history more like
+this:
+
+------------
+                 C0--C1--C2     topic-c
+                /
+    ---o---o---A                master
+                \
+                 B0--B1--B2     topic-b
+------------
+
+That is, keeping separate topics on separate branches, perhaps like
+so:
+
+------------
+    $ git clone $URL work && cd work
+    $ git checkout -b topic-b master
+    $ ... work to create B0, B1 and B2 to complete one theme
+    $ git checkout -b topic-c master
+    $ ... same for the theme of topic-c
+------------
+
+And then
+
+------------
+    $ git checkout master
+    $ git pull --ff-only
+------------
+
+would grab `X`, `Y` and `Z` from the upstream and advance your master
+branch:
+
+------------
+                 C0--C1--C2     topic-c
+                /
+    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z    master
+                \
+                 B0--B1--B2     topic-b
+------------
+
+And then you would merge these two branches separately:
+
+------------
+    $ git merge topic-b
+    $ git merge topic-c
+------------
+
+to result in
+
+------------
+                 C0--C1---------C2
+                /                 \
+    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---M---N
+                \             /
+                 B0--B1-----B2
+------------
+
+and push it back to the central repository.
+
+It is very much possible that while you are merging topic-b and
+topic-c, somebody again advanced the history in the central repository
+to put `W` on top of `Z`, and make your "git push" fail.
+
+In such a case, you would rewind to discard `M` and `N`, update the
+tip of your 'master' again and redo the two merges:
+
+------------
+    $ git reset --hard origin/master
+    $ git pull --ff-only
+    $ git merge topic-b
+    $ git merge topic-c
+------------
+
+------------
+                 C0--C1--------------C2
+                /                     \
+    ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---W---M'--N'
+                \                 /
+                 B0--B1---------B2
+------------
+
+See http://git-blame.blogspot.com/2012/03/fun-with-first-parent.html
-- 
2.0.0.rc1

Re: [PATCH] How to keep a project's canonical history correct.

[Stephen Smith]

> On May 8, 2014, at 11:08 PM, "Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> During the mail thread about "Pull is mostly evil" a user asked how
> the first parent could become reversed.
> 
> This howto explains how the first parent can get reversed when viewed
> by the project and then explains a method to keep the history correct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net>
> ---

The reason I resubmitted as a brand new patch was because I was using the message ID from the original topic as requested. 

In my repository I did a "git merge --squash" then the format patch.  

Re: [PATCH] How to keep a project's canonical history correct.

[Junio C Hamano]

"Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2@cox.net> writes:

> During the mail thread about "Pull is mostly evil" a user asked how
> the first parent could become reversed.
>
> This howto explains how the first parent can get reversed when viewed
> by the project and then explains a method to keep the history correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net>
> ---

I needed a few tweaks on top while queuing.  You will find the
result on 'pu' after I push it out.

In addition to one typofix ("because" lacking "c"), here are what I
did:

 - Typeset concrete command e.g. `git pull` in monospace.

 - The second and subsequent paragraphs continued with "+" need to
   be flushed to the left; leaving them indented will format them in
   monospace (see "with `git pull --rebase` or something").

 - Be more explicit in describing 'trunk' being 'the first-parent
   chain' in the text.

 - Refer to a newer article that discusses this exact topic.

 - De-emphasize 'fix-bug-12345' in "Merge fix-bug-12345" log message.

 - Describe what the final history illustration shows.


Unless you have objections to the below (or suggestions for better
alternatives), there is no need to resend the patch.

Thanks.

diff --git a/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt b/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt
index 5979a79..35d48ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/keep-canonical-history-correct.txt
@@ -38,12 +38,12 @@ central repository:
     ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z
 ------------
 
-Now, if you "git push" at this point, beause your history that leads
+Now, if you `git push` at this point, because your history that leads
 to `C` lacks `X`, `Y` and `Z`, it will fail.  You need to somehow make
 the tip of your history a descendant of `Z`.
 
 One suggested way to solve the problem is "fetch and then merge", aka
-"git pull". When you fetch, your repository will have a history like
+`git pull`. When you fetch, your repository will have a history like
 this:
 
 ------------
@@ -65,8 +65,9 @@ you will create a merge `M` and make the history look like this:
 repository.  Such a merge `M` does not lose any commit in both
 histories, so in that sense it may not be wrong, but when people want
 to talk about "the authoritative canonical history that is shared
-among the project participants", i.e. "the trunk", the way they often
-use is to do:
+among the project participants", i.e. "the trunk", they often view
+it as "commits you see by following the first-parent chain", and use
+this command to view it:
 
 ------------
     $ git log --first-parent
@@ -91,11 +92,11 @@ did `X` and then `Y` and then `Z` and merged a change that consists of
 two commits `B` and `C` that achieves a single goal.  You may have
 worked on fixing the bug #12345 with these two patches, and the merge
 `M'` with swapped parents can say in its log message "Merge
-'fix-bug-12345'". Having a way to tell "git pull" to create a merge
+fix-bug-12345". Having a way to tell `git pull` to create a merge
 but record the parents in reverse order may be a way to do so.
 
 Note that I said "achieves a single goal" above, because this is
-important.  "swapping the merge order" only covers a special case
+important.  "Swapping the merge order" only covers a special case
 where the project does not care too much about having unrelated
 things done on a single merge but cares a lot about first-parent
 chain.
@@ -111,7 +112,7 @@ There are multiple schools of thought about the "trunk" management.
     ---o---o---A---X---Y---Z---B---C
 ------------
 +
-    with `git pull --rebase` or something.
+with `git pull --rebase` or something.
 
  2. Some projects tolerate merges in their history, but do not worry
     too much about the first-parent order, and allow fast-forward
@@ -190,7 +191,7 @@ and push it back to the central repository.
 
 It is very much possible that while you are merging topic-b and
 topic-c, somebody again advanced the history in the central repository
-to put `W` on top of `Z`, and make your "git push" fail.
+to put `W` on top of `Z`, and make your `git push` fail.
 
 In such a case, you would rewind to discard `M` and `N`, update the
 tip of your 'master' again and redo the two merges:
@@ -202,6 +203,8 @@ tip of your 'master' again and redo the two merges:
     $ git merge topic-c
 ------------
 
+The procedure will result in a history that looks like this:
+
 ------------
 		 C0--C1--------------C2
 		/                     \
@@ -210,4 +213,4 @@ tip of your 'master' again and redo the two merges:
 		 B0--B1---------B2
 ------------
 
-See http://git-blame.blogspot.com/2012/03/fun-with-first-parent.html
+See also http://git-blame.blogspot.com/2013/09/fun-with-first-parent-history.html

Re: [PATCH] How to keep a project's canonical history correct.

[Stephen & Linda Smith]

On Friday, May 09, 2014 02:05:44 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I needed a few tweaks on top while queuing.  You will find the
> result on 'pu' after I push it out.
> 
> In addition to one typofix ("because" lacking "c"), here are what I
> did:
> 
>  - Typeset concrete command e.g. `git pull` in monospace.
> 
>  - The second and subsequent paragraphs continued with "+" need to
>    be flushed to the left; leaving them indented will format them in
>    monospace (see "with `git pull --rebase` or something").
> 
>  - Be more explicit in describing 'trunk' being 'the first-parent
>    chain' in the text.
> 
>  - Refer to a newer article that discusses this exact topic.
> 
>  - De-emphasize 'fix-bug-12345' in "Merge fix-bug-12345" log message.
> 
>  - Describe what the final history illustration shows.
> 
> 
> Unless you have objections to the below (or suggestions for better
> alternatives), there is no need to resend the patch.
> 

I like the changes.