Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:36:59 -0700
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu`
> for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before
> even considering it for `pu`?
> Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned
> long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the
> rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for
> it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too
> freely and too deliberately.
This is not about where the bar is set. It is about expectation. I
do not expect much from occasional (or new) contributors and I try
not to demand too much from them. The consequence is that as long
as a small patch makes things better without making anything worse,
I'd want to be inclusive to encourage them to build obvious
improvements on top. Maybe they just want a single patch landed to
fix their immediate needs (which may be generic enough and expected
to be shared with many other people) without going further, so I may
end up queuing something that only helps 40% of people until follow
up patches are done to cover the remaining 60% of people, but that
is fine as long as the patch does not make things worse (it is not
like a patch that helps 40% while hurting the remaining 60% until
a follow-up happens).
I would expect a lot more from experienced contributors, when I know
they are capable of helping the remaining 60% inside the same series
and without requiring too much hand-holding from me. The same thing
I cannot say to a occasional (or new) contributor---they may not be
coorperative, or they may be willing to do more but may require more
help polishing their work than the bandwidth I can afford.
So if you are volunteering to help by either guiding Martin to aim
higher and make this a series with a larger and more complete scope,
I'd very much appreciate it. Or you can do a follow-up series on
top of what Martin posted. Either is fine by me. Just do not step
on each others' toes ;-)
I avoided saying all of the above because I didn't want my word
taken out of context later to make it sound as if I were belittling
the competence of Martin, but you seem to want to force me to say
this, so here it is.