bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#35062: [PATCH v3 1/3] Remove redundant comparison


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#35062: [PATCH v3 1/3] Remove redundant comparison
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:21:53 +0300

> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:01:35 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> > That's true, but this is not such a situation: the original changes
> > were never committed without any modifications.
> 
> Well, given the line my patch modifies has no changes, the only 
> modification was the commit message. My only mistake was not knowing 
> that UTF8 is prohibited. But really, it's a 2 symbols text replacement, 
> me or you could just replace it.

No, the log message was not the problem.  Look at the code changes,
they were the ones I modified.

> Is there an extra work? The changes you added can be commited with α) 
> git commit --amend -v, or β) git commit -v. You did α, which only 
> differs from β by a number of characters, that is ironically smaller 
> in β.

Yes, this is extra work: it requires one more commit.  More steps,
more opportunities to make mistakes, etc.  And that's if I'm not
interrupted in the middle of it by something in Real Life, or someone
pushes to upstream in-between, and I need to pull again and perhaps
resolve conflicts.  I'd rather avoid such complications for a simple
job like that.

> > You can always use "git log --grep" to find references to your
> > contributions in the log messages.  And the log message includes a
> > reference to the bug number, where you can refer people for your
> > actual contribution.
> 
> Who would attach a bunch of commit messages to a CV?

I don't know.  When I interview software engineers, I don't ask them
for such details, I can look up their contributions myself, given just
the repository URL.

> Sorry, I actually feel embarassed that I discussing a trivial one-liner 
> patch :D But I can't stop thinking that this could've happened with a 
> non-one-line or maybe one-line but non-trivial contribution…

We are splitting hair, for sure.  I think you are unfamiliar with our
procedures, and try too hard to find aspects that you saw elsewhere.
If so, it's a temporary difficulty.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]