Re: My patches

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

I think the reason for it most likely is because you earned the Bozo bit ($gmane/227602) in many reviewers' eyes.

I phrased it differently ($gmane/233347) at the beginning of this cycle, but I'll say it one more time. I'll refrain from responding to your messages with anything other than "looks good, thanks". A patch from you that I do not understand the motivation behind it, or a patch from you that attempts to solve a problem I see better ways of solving the same, will not see the usual response from me that requests a clarification (in the resulting code or in its explanation in the proposed commit log message) or suggests an improvement or an alternative.

Such a review comment and the discussion that follows it after a patch is posted is an essential part of the collaborative development process in this community and it has helped the quality of our end product. We unfortunately saw time and again that the process rarely works when the discussion involves your patches. A review thread tends not to conclude with a useful patch but instead descends into an unproductive centithread, frustrating reviewers and discouraging other people from participating, and ends up draining the energy from everybody involved, which is better spent elsewhere to do the real work. It may be reviewers' fault (cf. $gmane/235277), or maybe the blame lies elsewhere, but it does not change the fact that we end up wasting a lot of energy without going anywhere.

In short, responding to your patch that is not a simple "looks good, thanks" material wastes time, harming the community and hurting our users. That was exactly the reason why you earlier were asked to leave ($gmane/227750). So I'll try not to respond to them.

I haven't caught up with the list traffic yet, but the way the discussion that followed a recent review ($gmane/235936) progressed tells me that things haven't improved much, so the assessment above still seems to hold true, at least to me.