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

> Hi Junio,
> 
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>> 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?
> 
> I completely agree -- all of Michael's suggestions were excellent, and
> I'd definitely owe him an explanation for not using something.  In
> this particular case, it was an honest mistake though- I meant to
> include Michael's version, but I'd rolled out the wrong commit after
> rebasing.