Hi Laszlo, Le Thursday 13 February 2014 à 10:46 +0000, Laszlo Papp a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series > >> to avoid conflicts: > >> > >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html > > > > As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it > > go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too. > > Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to > > find someone else if that requirement really holds true. I find it _very_ funny that you dare to complain here, when you sent a totally untested patch no later than 2 days ago: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041180.html There's no way that patch can work. And, actually, Guenter's patches have been reviewed and tested by myself, to some degree (I don't have access to a physical MAX6650 or MAX6651 chip so I used an emulation, which I think was good enough given the nature of the changes.) > > I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my > > features in. I have no idea what you mean here. > Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would > really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch. I'm sure Gunter would have preferred if you could write proper patches so he wouldn't have to do it himself. Seriously, nobody here cares about your personal preferences. You said you want some significant changes done to the max6650 driver, it takes many steps to get there, either you take them, or you can leave right now. If you're not going to listen to (and subsequently obey) people who have been working on this project for years and are well-known and respected by the vast majority of their peers, then bye bye. > Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime > tested changes? I see you once again failed to read (or understand) something I repeated many times already. One of these changes (the one moving the hwmon attributes from i2c device to hwmon device) is _mandatory_ to get your own changes accepted. Guenter did you an immense favor by writing these patches, so if anything you should be very grateful to him. > This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally > do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over > internal polishing. Change books then, yours is just wrong. Bug fixes come first, then cleanups, then features. Adding features on top of ugly code is a pain for everyone. Plus cleaning up the code helps you to understand it, so I'd say this is time well invested. You should try, that would certainly help you avoid some mistakes you did in the past. I would like to add a more general comment on the way you behave with the community and that has been bothering me for days. You apparently act first and think second. I can no longer count the number of times you replied to a post only to reply to yourself a few minutes later. Last occurrence of this is in this thread: first reply from you at 11:38, and then an addition at 11:46, i.e. 8 minutes later. And you do that all the time. And it holds for patches too, for example. http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041179.html posted at 11:24, then http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041180.html v2 of the same posted at 11:28. So please listen to this piece of advice: take your time. Think more, and only act after you have thought thoroughly about everything. It will save you a lot of trouble, and the community a lot of time. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
