Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 2009/8/26 Ali Polatel <polatel@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> It works, I don't get any segfaults after applying this patch.
>
> Junio, I hope you don't mind me asking but why hasn't this patch been
> accepted? It addresses a pretty severe problem, and the sooner users
> have it the better.
The procedure ideally goes like this:
(0) original bug report is sent; Ali did this with:
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:56:52 +0300
Message-ID: <20090817135651.GA4570@harikalardiyari>
(1) a helpful contributor (or somebody ashamed of having introduced
the bug ;-)) sends a potential fix as an RFT to the reporter, with
Cc: to list. You did this with:
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:20:53 +0800
Message-ID: <20090826202053.6e6442a6.rctay89@xxxxxxxxx>
This message was clear that it was a request-for-test of a
potential fix, not a "I know this is the correct fix to the
problem; the maintainer, please apply". It wasn't even Cc:'ed to
me, and not CC'ing me is the right thing to do for this kind of
request-for-test patches.
(2) success/failure report is given. Ali did this with:
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:12:35 +0300
Message-ID: <20090826131235.GF16486@harikalardiyari>
to report a success.
(3) Upon seeing (2), the sender of (1) submits the final patch for
inclusion, with To: me and CC: list.
The sender makes sure that it is easy for me and others who sees
(3) first without necessarily having followed the earlier
discussions to find the previous messages (i.e. 0, 1, 2). In this
case, sending a follow-up to (2) is sufficient, just like you did
in the message I am responding to, because these three steps were
neatly threaded already.
If you knew the flow I am describing here, you would have sent
"the final patch for inclusion" instead of the message I am
replying to. The final patch for inclusion would have consisted
of:
* The usual "applicable patch": a proper subject, the log message,
your Signed-off-by:, and Tested-by: to credit Ali;
* Optionally, after the three-dash line before the diffstat, any
out-of-band communication, e.g.
"Junio, please apply to 'maint'; this is a fix for a grave bug,
and the problem goes all the way down to version 1.6.1."
* And the diffstat and the diff.
My request for this procedure is not red tape.
While an issue (such as this http one) is resolved that is in an area
(e.g. http) people other than me (i.e. you) are much more familiar with, I
do not have to keep track of the discussion while more capable hands are
on top of it. Having (3) as the concluding step will
- give me a way to easily verify, if I wanted to, the claim that this is
the right solution, by referring to the previous dialog; and
- give you a way to make sure that what is recorded is the correct final
solution (this is especially important if steps 1 and 2 have to be
repeated before reaching the final solution), and that the necessary
background information (e.g. credits to the original reporter) are
given in your own words, instead of having _me_ come up with one with
less-than-perfect understanding of the issues I would gain after
skimming the archive for the previous discussion.
Nobody can expect me to keep track of everything; the final "Here is the
good one" would help the process flow smoothly and reduce the chance of
mistakes.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html