On Thursday 12 February 2009 05:32:52 Mark wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:58:25 +0100 (CET) > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
