Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Is it though? >> >> Yes. >> >> If the proposed log message says "as intended", the author thinks it >> is. > > The question is not if the author of the patch thinks this is the way > `-s` is intended to work, the question is if this is the way `-s` is > intended to work. The "author" refers to the author of the "proposed log message" of the patch in question, i.e. me in this case. The author of the patch under discussion thinks it is, so asking "Is it?", implying you do not agree, is nothing but a rhetorical question, and doing so, without explaining why, wastes time on both sides. I am not interested in getting involved in unproductive arguments with you (or with anybody else for that matter). I've been giving you benefit of doubt, but I'll go back to refrain from responding to your message, unless it is a patch that I can say "I agree 100% with what the proposed log message says and what the patch text does, looking great, thanks. Will queue." to, which has been my default stance. Past experience tells me that to any review other than "100% good", I would see responses in an unpleasant and hostile manner. Anything that asks clarification for something unclear in your patch, or suggests alternatives or improvements. And it led to unproductive and irritating waste of time number of times, and eventually you were asked to leave the development community for at least a few times.
