Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] Prepare the sequencer for the upcoming rebase -i patches

From: Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:02:57 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Max,

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Max Horn wrote:

> > On 23 Oct 2016, at 11:54, Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 
> [...]
> 
> >> There isn't enough time to include this topic in the upcoming release
> >> within the current https://tinyurl.com/gitCal calendar, however,
> >> which places the final on Nov 11th.
> > 
> > More is the pity.
> > 
> > Thank you, though, for being upfront with me. I will shift my focus to
> > tasks that require my attention more urgently, then.
> 
> Junio did go on, though:
> 
> >> I am wondering if it makes sense to delay 2.11 by moving the final
> >> by 4 weeks to Dec 9th.
> 
> I was reading this as an offer to delay things to accommodate the
> integration your work into 2.11. I.e. "within the current plan, there is
> no time for this, but we could adjust the plan". But maybe I am
> misinterpreting?

There is no indication that the rebase--helper patches would make it into
2.11 even with four more weeks.

I will now focus on other things that I postponed in favor of the
interactive rebase patches. In fact, I *have* to focus on some quite
pressing tasks that I neglected over those patches.

It's not like the process would magically improve just because a release
date is pushed. To the contrary, pushing the release date to allow for the
rebase--helper to be included may very well have the counterintuitive
effect of delaying things beyond even that pushed date "because there is
now so much time left" (until there isn't). It's a variation of
[Parkinson's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law) ;-)

Anyway, back to work,
Dscho