On Mon, 3 May 2010, Andrew Ruder wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 07:07:08AM +0200, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
I know it all seems nit-picky, but if you want to see your changes make
it into git.git you're best off making it as EASY AS POSSIBLE for the
reviewer to take your patch and apply it and be done with it. This just
isn't possible without testcases, documentation updates, etc..
Especially for feature additions (vs bug fixes) you really have to make
life as simple (and normal) as possible for reviewers, maintainers,
etc.. After all, it is a lot easier living without a feature than it is
a documented bug-fix!
Just a random lurker trying to help you out here!
Thnx for your feedback. Will rework some of the parts you mentioned.
I think such a strict process should be valid for final commits to the git
repository. But for a first patch ready for discussion I think one
shouldn't make such strict process rules. I think we are at the state
whether such a patch *might* be accepted and reviewers should look at the
content first to have a decision for digging further (e.g. rework some
parts of the patch) or for "ok this makes no sense at all". I think this
saves time of the reviewers and also my time (I could now make all the
formal stuff of the patch you mentioned but when there is something
fundamental wrong there e.g in concept all the work was useless when not
accepted. I think there should be agreement of the roadmap of a feature
and then a focus on formalism to finally commit a pathc. So I'm a fan of
discussion and incremental work to minimise useless and typically
frustrating effort.)
Ciao,
Gerhard
--
http://www.wiesinger.com/
--
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