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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2013, 22:22 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1h50Xjo7H4Op=yDuO7pon2JdxZMBy2JSj2kf+Tnznd=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v1u9xvt88.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Good, so I'll keep sending the patches, because our users benefit from
>> the review.
>
> Just for the record, a patch sent to the list which nobody bothered
> to read does not really count as reviewed.

No, but I did my part, which is sending them for review.

> You can either
>
>  (1) pace yourself when people are otherwise busy; or

I would, if there was a reason to.

>  (2) send them anyway but not claim "this was sent to the list two
>      weeks ago, nobody complained, so it must be perfect" when it is
>      not picked up after a few weeks.

When have I ever done that?

> Often (1) is a better strategy, as people who wanted to review but
> otherwise were busy tend to declare patch bankruptcy after their
> busy period ends.

Not for remote-{bzr,hg}. I've yet to see anybody claim they would review the patches thoroughly, if only they were given time. I've yet to see anybody claim they would review the patches thoroughly under any circumstance at all. And by that I mean the patches that really would benefit from reviewing.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Also, a reason that a patch goes uncommented is when it is difficult
> to judge.  A patch with code change without sufficient explanation
> behind the motivation to justify the change, a reviewer finds it
> much harder to convince himself that the patch is a good change, and
> it also is much harder to find which part of the change is wrong and
> offer improvements, compared to a patch with the same change that is
> justified properly.

Yes, but is that the case *HERE*? And no, single line changes that are trivial and obvious don't count. Show me an important patch that surely would benefit from reviewing that doesn't have sufficient explanation. Show me an important patch that anybody is not convinced is a good patch. In the remote-{hg,bzr} context.

If there isn't any, I don't see why remote-{bzr,hg} should slow down.

For this patch, I don't care one iota.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras