Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] remote-hg: more improvements

From: David Kastrup <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 00:30:47 +0200

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> David Kastrup <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Philippe Vaucher <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. I think it underlines well the A)
>>> technical issues (quality commits) and the B) social issues (ability
>>> to communicate in a friendly way & respond constructively), which we
>>> discovered are both *essential* for contributing to git.
>>
>> I'm not entirely convinced of that: there is something akin to drop-dead
>> gorgeous code: code that is so well done that it would not matter with
>> regard to its maintenance whether or not its author dropped dead because
>> it's both done well as well as documented in a manner where the original
>> author could not offer significant additional help.
>
> I would have to say that you are living in a fantasy land.  During
> the entire life of Git, I do not think I ever saw such a code that
> is perfect from the get-go and did not require any maintenance to
> adjust to the changing time.

You are attacking a straw man.  "where the original author could not
offer significant _additional_ help" does not at all equate "does not
require any maintenance".

-- 
David Kastrup