Re: [PATCH 1/9] remote-bzr: trivial cleanups

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2013, 20:23 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0P4K8MSsuPLCSCVzNJnioCpTJ0puD-gduuDbmRcGZGOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0nkt-uytJYpyZ94YCqV8L=m7v39TxKBaKfMJivh2COEng@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> We all benefit from these patches being reviewed in the git mailing
>> list, nobody has claimed otherwise. You are making the error of
>> assuming that your review was actionable, that I should have done
>> something, fix the commit message I suppose, but I don't think that's
>> important.
>
> What I'm saying is that you can get more eyes.  A lot more eyes.  If
> you just write a proper commit message!

It is a trivial obvious patch that changes very few lines of code, it doesn't need more eyes in my opinion. For the patches that do need eyes I do send descriptive commit messages. And some patches that I don't think need eyes, but I think I could do wrong, I also write descriptive messages.

So far, it looks like I was right in thinking this patch didn't need more eyes. And I think my original commit description, which I deleted by mistake was more than enough "Mostly from remote-hg. It's possible that there's a fix to delete files with spaces". Because so far, nobody has pointed out any actual issue, and it's not clear if this patch would benefit from even more eyes... probably won't.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Why are you hitting everyone's inboxes with such cryptic patches that
> require either:
> 1. The reviewer to trust what you've done and move on.
> 2. The reviewer to do a lot of digging before the patch becomes
> accessible to her.

Because there's no other way to get the changes into git.git. If you wan't I can add "DO NOT REVIEW" in the title, but I think "trivial cleanups" pretty much sums that what I feel, and actually I wouldn't want people to _not_ review the patches, but rather to understand that I think they are trivial, and shouldn't worry too much about them.

Show 6 quoted lines

>> You just got angry that your review didn't turn out to be helpful, is
>> that it? Why do you want to steal helpful review from the users of
>> remote-{bzr,hg}? If that's not the case, please stop doing that. All
>> review is welcome, not all review should be acted upon.
>
> I'm not angry about anything, or trying to steal anything.

Good, so I'll keep sending the patches, because our users benefit from the review.

> What happened:  New email.  Felipe's remote-hg fixes.  Okay, let's
> look at this.  Part 1.  What?!  [I wrote down what I was thinking as I
> was reading the email]

Write what you see, not what you feel. Your questions about the code are fine, but making assumptions about what remote-bzr users must be suffering by not having more descriptive commit messages are not. You also assumed that I wanted to send that commit message, when that was not true, I removed a chunk by mistake.

In general, you shouldn't make assumptions.

> This is where you _should_ apply reason: justify everything you've
> done in the patch in your commit message.  Why are you so stubborn
> about not wanting to change your ways despite so many people telling
> you?  Is it your pride*?

Stop asking these questions, I thought you already agreed this patch was not worth discussing about. If you see *any other* patch that doesn't have a good enough commit message, reply _there_. And if you do want to pursue these questions irrespective of this patch, start a new thread.

> * Yes, I noticed that you have a huge ego.  I consider it an undesirable trait.

I don't think so, but even if I did, it doesn't matter, all that matters is that my arguments are sound and valid, you should concentrate on the ball, not on the man. The fact that I believe my arguments are valid and sound doesn't make me egotistic, it might be that they are actually valid and sound, and I'm simply assessing them correctly. I of course I'm willing to admit otherwise, based on evidence, and reason.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras