Hi Denis, Rather than replying to all the separate items here, just two things: 1) I'll reiterate - please keep things civil. You're taking things out of context a *lot* here, in what seems like an attempt to draw a parallel between my and your utterances. 2) I'll take your point that I've been somewhat dismissive in tone, and will try to change that. I do want to reply to two things specifically though: > Fine. I get that. But how about asking what the use case is? Or say > you don't quite understand why something is needed? Really, I should *not* have to ask that. You should consider it your obligation to provide enough information for me to review patches without having to go back and ask what it is you actually want to achieve. Compared to some other subsystems and maintainers I've dealt with, I think I've actually been rather patient in trying to extract the purpose of your changes, rather than *really* just dismissing them (which I've felt like many times.) > a maintainer who's job (by definition) > is to encourage new contributors and improve the subsystem he > maintains...? This is what maybe you see as the maintainer's role, but I disagree, at least to some extent. I see the role more of a supervisor, somebody who's ensuring that all the changes coming in will work together. Yes, I have my own incentive to improve things, but if you have a particular incentive to improve a particular use case, the onus really is on you to convince me of that, not on me to try to ferret the reasoning out of you and make those improvements my own. So please - come with some actual reasoning. This particular thread only offered "would elminate a few potential race conditions", in the cover letter, not even the patch itself, so it wasn't very useful. I was perhaps less than courteous trying to extract the reasoning, but I shouldn't have to in the first place. Thanks, johannes
