Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: Add filter.<driver>.* to config

> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm very sorry to have caused so much pain.  Yes, I can imagine how
> > terrible it must be to review several iterations of a simple
> > documentation patch.  Thank you for being so patient with me so far- I
> > understand if you don't want to do this anymore.
> >
> > I do spend time proofreading patches before sending them out, but I'm
> > clearly not very good at it.  In future, I'll either try rewriting
> > entire paragraphs or simply refrain from writing documentation patches.
> 
> I do not think that is the lesson you should learn from this exchange.  A
> major part of Michael's complaint (which I think was justified) was that
> he even made a suggestion that is ready to be cut-and-pasted, but your
> reroll does not use the suggested phrasing _without_ explaining why it
> doesn't.
> 
> It is not limited to "documentation patches".  If you get a "how about
> doing it this way---isn't it cleaner?" suggestion to your code patch, you
> at least owe either "yeah, that looks better---thanks, I've used it in
> this reroll" or "no, because...; I've used the original" to the person who
> tried to help you, no?