Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu` > for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before > even considering it for `pu`? > > Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned > long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the > rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for > it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too > freely and too deliberately. This is not about where the bar is set. It is about expectation. I do not expect much from occasional (or new) contributors and I try not to demand too much from them. The consequence is that as long as a small patch makes things better without making anything worse, I'd want to be inclusive to encourage them to build obvious improvements on top. Maybe they just want a single patch landed to fix their immediate needs (which may be generic enough and expected to be shared with many other people) without going further, so I may end up queuing something that only helps 40% of people until follow up patches are done to cover the remaining 60% of people, but that is fine as long as the patch does not make things worse (it is not like a patch that helps 40% while hurting the remaining 60% until a follow-up happens). I would expect a lot more from experienced contributors, when I know they are capable of helping the remaining 60% inside the same series and without requiring too much hand-holding from me. The same thing I cannot say to a occasional (or new) contributor---they may not be coorperative, or they may be willing to do more but may require more help polishing their work than the bandwidth I can afford. So if you are volunteering to help by either guiding Martin to aim higher and make this a series with a larger and more complete scope, I'd very much appreciate it. Or you can do a follow-up series on top of what Martin posted. Either is fine by me. Just do not step on each others' toes ;-) I avoided saying all of the above because I didn't want my word taken out of context later to make it sound as if I were belittling the competence of Martin, but you seem to want to force me to say this, so here it is.
