Gmail seems to mark your replies as spam :( On 17 July 2017 at 11:34, Ian Molton <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17/07/17 05:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> I looked at 4 random patches and none got any description. Not to >> mention their chaotic subjects. In this state I can't even review it. >> If you want to have some change accepted, you've to convince us it's >> needed. Work on cleaning your patches and resend them. You also need >> to signed off your changes. > > This isn't my first rodeo. I know there are only outline descriptions, > and no Sob. > > Thats because this is an RFC. You sign off *finished* work. Sending signed patches, include RFCs is much more convenient. It allows e.g. other people to pick your work if you won't manage to get in accepted for some reason. > This is a codebase I'm not 100% familiar with, and I don't know the > maintainers - Im not going to polish patches if they aren't then going > to get accepted upstream. > > I'm looking for comments on the actual *code*. Review requires *reading* > it. Review is not just "I read the description and it looked ok at the > time" - Thats clearly how this code got into this state in the first place. I don't expect patches to be perfectly polished at RFC phase. I also never said I'm interested in description only. Don't expect to get nicely described hack to get accepted for that reason. Description is supposed to provide a context for the changes. It's easier to review *code changes* knowing what you are trying to fix/achieve. It saves a lot of guessing time. > Honestly, the patch robot has given more useful feedback than the humans > on here thus far. > > But hey, if thats how patch submission works these days... I'll add some > descriptions. But I'd better not be polishing this stuff for no reason. Insulting maintainers may not be the best way of getting your stuff reviewed & accepted. -- Rafał
