Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: Add filter.<driver>.* to config
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2011, 16:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vpqozjpcl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110406124235.GA5881@kytes>
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> 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?