Hi,
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Mark Burton wrote:
Signed-off-by: Mark Burton <redacted>
---
Because it was not mentioned in the commit message, I only realized after
writing a patch that rebase -i --whitespace already errors out.
Would be nice to have important information like that (I mean that it is
already handled, not that I was stupid enough to write the patch) in the
commit message, don't you agree?
Ciao,
Dscho
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:58:25 +0100 (CET)
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Mark Burton wrote:
quoted
Signed-off-by: Mark Burton <redacted>
---
Because it was not mentioned in the commit message, I only realized after
writing a patch that rebase -i --whitespace already errors out.
Would be nice to have important information like that (I mean that it is
already handled, not that I was stupid enough to write the patch) in the
commit message, don't you agree?
Actually, no.
I am very glad that the git guardians are diligent and careful because
it gives me confidence that my favourite software is going to work
reliably and efficiently, etc.
However, if that diligence and attention to detail, etc. extends to the
point where a humble git user (not a developer) cannot submit a patch that
he thinks will, in some small way, improve the software, without being
quizzed, grilled or, in extreme cases, mocked or abused (it happens)
because the patch is not 100% perfect in every way, then, I am happy to
let the development process continue without my feeble contributions.
So, I left something out of the commit message, did I? Oh my gawd, I
better top myself!
Johannes, you're the worst of the pedants. Ease up man, you'll bust a
blood vessel!
Cheerio list (keep up the good work),
Mark
On Thursday 12 February 2009 05:32:52 Mark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:58:25 +0100 (CET)
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Would be nice to have important information like that (I mean that it is
already handled, not that I was stupid enough to write the patch) in the
commit message, don't you agree?
Actually, no.
I am very glad that the git guardians are diligent and careful because
it gives me confidence that my favourite software is going to work
reliably and efficiently, etc.
However, if that diligence and attention to detail, etc. extends to the
point where a humble git user (not a developer) cannot submit a patch that
he thinks will, in some small way, improve the software, without being
quizzed, grilled or, in extreme cases, mocked or abused (it happens)
because the patch is not 100% perfect in every way, then, I am happy to
let the development process continue without my feeble contributions.
Junio does final fix-up on a lot of patches, but it's better if he doesn't
have to spend much time doing that and can spend more time merging and writing
patches.
High-quality commits are what makes git high-quality software. You seem to
want the later, but don't want to provide the former. You might not have to.
Someone may pick up you patch and apply the fixes you won't spend time on.
However, if no one does, blame yourself. You know enough about the process to
submit the patch once. You should know enough to submit the patch as many
times as needed to get an Ack.
So, I left something out of the commit message, did I? Oh my gawd, I
better top myself!
Dscho wasn't saying that. However, if you left something out of the commit
message (and you seem to admit you did), you should add it and resubmit.
Johannes, you're the worst of the pedants. Ease up man, you'll bust a
blood vessel!
After I read this list for about a month, I has convinced that Dscho's main
purpose in life was to prevent patches from being accepted. After reading the
list for 3 months, I recognized that Dscho's performing an important service
for the list that definitely drives up the quality of the code seen in git.
Unfortunately, doing that job makes people grumpy, so occasionally you may see
Dscho come off as brusque.
At http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote about reviewing patches for the Linux kernel:
"The Linux kernel mailing list also has another kind of perceived problem.
Lots of people can find the reaction of developers on this list as very
"harsh" at times. They post their code, and get back scathing reviews of
everything they did wrong. Usually the reviewers only criticize the code
itself, but for most people, this can be a very hard thing to be on the
receiving end of. They just put out what they felt was a perfect thing, only
to see it cut into a zillion tiny pieces.
"The big problem of this, is we really only have a very small group of people
reviewing code in the kernel community. Reviewing code is a hard, unrewarding,
tough thing to do. It really makes you grumpy and rude in a very short period
of time. I tried it out for a whole week, and at the end of it, I was writing
emails like this one:
'Wow, for such a small file, every single function was incorrect. And you
abused sysfs in a new and interesting way that I didn't think was even
possible. I think this is two new records you have set here,
congratulations.'
"Other people who review code, aren't even as nice as I was here."
In short, reviewing is hard and thankless and we are lucky we have Dscho (and
others) to do it for us.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/