Em Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:12:20 +0200 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:20:50PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:31:20 +0100 > > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Disable configurations for non-preview modes until configuration selection > > > is improved. > > > > Again, a poor description. It just repeats the subject. > > A good subject/description should answer 3 questions: > > > > what? > > why? > > how? > > > > Anyway, looking at this patch's contents, it partially answers my > > questions: > > > > the previous patch do cause regressions at the code. > > > > Ok, this is staging. So, we don't have very strict rules here, > > but still causing regressions without providing a very good > > reason why sucks. > > > > I would also merge this with the previous one, in order to place all > > regressions on a single patch. > > It's trivial to bring back the configurations disabled here by just > reverting this patch. The other patch does not disable any. That's why > they're separate. Yes, and I'm not saying otherwise. The main issue here is that it lacks a description (as what's there is just a copy of the subject). Why is it needed to "disable non-preview configurations"? Also, as you're actually commenting the code with #if 0, I'm assuming that you're thinking on re-enable the code (or re-implement with a different logic) in the future. So, please add a note before the #if 0, as otherwise I'm pretty sure someone will end by sending us patches just stripping it. Regards, Mauro
