Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/3] push: add "--[no-]force-if-includes"

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 09:50:54 -0700

Srinidhi Kaushik <[email-masked]> writes:

> I didn't want want to cause a delay with this patch. Since the new
> option was seemingly working without it,...

It is a good example to help other new contributors to understand an
important point in how the development in common works, so let me
say this.

I did very much wanted to keep the bug exposed at least to the test
suite.  Since the broken helper were designed to be used in many
other places in the code, and we had a simple reproduction recipe in
this topic, using it as an opening to help debug and fix bugs in the
broken helper had higher priority than adding the "--force-if-includes"
feature.

We help the contributors who have been involved in the broken helper
by delaying this topic a bit and leaving the reproduction readily
available to them, so that they help us who are working on a piece
of code that wants to see the broken helper fixed.  

That way everybody benefits.

It's not like a corporate development where your interest lies in
shipping your piece regardless of the work done by other teams,
where it might serve you better by using the second best tool for
the task, to avoid the tool that ought to be best but does not work
well *and* you do not want to help the team that manages that best
tool, even if helping them may benefit the whole organization.

So, let's play well together.  Yield a bit to help others and let
others also help you.

Thanks.