On Sunday 24 of November 2024 07:04:02 Andrew Randrianasulu via tde-users wrote: > вс, 24 нояб. 2024 г., 05:54 Slávek Banko via tde-users < > > users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Sunday 24 of November 2024 00:33:52 deloptes via tde-users wrote: > > > > I write nothing to TGW right now since there lie tens my previous > > > > patches! > > > > > > There are a lot of patches (PRs) in the queue there. No one > > > complains, except you. It is your free choice. I personally see it > > > as symbiosis. And at some point of time someone picks up the patch > > > works it out and it either accepted or rejected. > > > > There were situations where thorough research clearly showed that the > > proposed patch did not solve the cause of the problem, but one > > specific consequence - only hides the real cause of the problem. While > > the other potential consequences would remain unresolved and would > > probably wait for the next hack, which would again solve the > > individual consequences, not the cause. While the author fundamentally > > refused any cooperation in finding a real cause. As a result, real > > repairs of the causes of the problems were merged instead of the > > proposed hack. > > To be honest I (as non-developer who somewhat forced to be) tend to see > things more from "forever novice" perspective: TDE is big codebase, and > assuming someone can jump right in and prepare professional quality > solution you simply can merge ... is a bit unrealistic? > > yes, people might be uncomfortable to extreme if you ask them to do > professional analysis even without telling them *how* it done (assuming > here they, like you, know it by heart). > > I guess it hurts both ways ..... > Yes, it is a large volume of code and it can be difficult to get a thorough overview. But yes, even without obtaining a thorough overview, someone can do a good finding of a specific bug and prepare a good fix. For example, thanks to backtrace from the grash. And there is no problem to accept and merge a good patch from anyone. Likewise, there is no problem, if someone suggests a patch, we give him comments that there is a need for some modifications and thanks to the mutual cooperation between the author and the revising after a while we move to a good patch, which we then like to merge. This is then beneficial for both sides - the author gets feedback and will gain better overview and experience, the project will gain repair and improvements. However, when someone gives a patch that, for example, removes a line with a call to release memory, at first glance it looks like an incorrect solution. When the author on the comment: "This looks like this will require a more thorough examination to solve the real cause of the problem," he responds by calling: "No, it works for me, I will not do anything else! You have to merge it as I did it!”, that's a problem. When, after some time and thorough examination, it confirms that the problem was elsewhere and the solution was different, but the author still shouts: "My fix was correct! You should have merge it as I did it!", this is indeed a problem to try to cooperate with such an author. Cheers Slávek --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
____________________________________________________ tde-users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
