Subject: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: git add --interactive patch improvement for split hunks

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:27:16 +0200

On Wed, Jun 30 2021, Jeff King wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:09:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>> >     It looks like Junio carried it in "What's Cooking" for almost a
>> >     year, marked as "waiting for re-roll" to handle the squash, but then
>> >     eventually discarded it as stale. :(
>> 
>> Heh, thanks for digging.
>> 
>> Is the moral of the story that we should merge down unfinished
>> topics more aggressively (hoping that the untied loose ends would be
>> tied after they hit released version), we should prod owners of
>> stalled topics with sharper stick more often, or something else?
>
> I'm not sure. I think the topic would have graduated if either you had
> just applied the squash and merged it down, or if the original author
> had checked back in over the intervening year to say "hey, what happened
> to my patch" (either by reading "what's cooking" or manually).
>
> I suspect drive-by contributors might not realize they need to do the
> latter in some cases, but I wouldn't have counted 2014-era Ævar in that
> boat. So I dunno.

Or maybe the moral of the story that it's a net addition of complexity
to git-add--interactive.perl. If I didn't care enough to remember or
notice the issue again maybe it wasn't all that important to begin with.

Likewise when it got ejected nobody else seemed to notice/care enough to
say "hey I liked that feature" & to pick it up.

I'd entirely forgotten I wrote that. Now that I'm reminded of it I don't
care enough myself to rebase it, test it again, and especially not to
figure out if/how it's going to interact with the new C implementation /
add and adjust a test for the two.

But maybe someone else will, it would be neat if someone has more of an
itch from the lack of that feature & wants to pick it up.