GNU bug report logs - #12159
24.1.50; vc-dir: Need a way to hide unregistered files

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 18:16:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Merged with 6148

Found in version 24.1.50

Fixed in version 24.3

Done: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #52 received at 12159 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 12159 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12159: 24.1.50; vc-dir: Need a way to hide unregistered files
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:20:29 +0300
> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:41:00 +0530
> Cc: 12159 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> I wish reviewers provide feedback which is comprehensive right from the
> word go.  Let me explain ...
> 
> When I submitted my patch it was complete i.e., I did not present it
> hunk-by-hunk.  I re-worked the patch based on feedback and I have
> demonstrated some seriousness in making the patch acceptable.
> 
> Unfortunately, the review process here seems to have gone by "hunk by
> hunk" mode.  A small note here, a small note there.  For something as
> simple as this patch, why should we have 100 exchanges?
> 
> I can't care less if you call my patch a crap or hold an opinion that I
> should never enter a programmer's territory.  It is not what I am
> talking about.
> 
> Reviewers have infinite time to review the patch.  Let them collect
> their notes and give a comprehensive list of what they think is
> acceptable to them.
> 
> I hope I am not placing an un-reasonable demand.  
> 
> We are talking of an implicit social contract that reviewers and patch
> submitters should adhere to.  Unfortunately, it is only the patch
> submitters end of the contract that gets much emphasis.

I'm sorry you feel this way.  However, after reading the entire
discussion, I see nothing but a reasonable process.  Let me explain.

Your original submission first got a general comment from Stefan
suggesting a different approach.  When you reworked the patch
according to Stefan's suggestions, you got one comment from Andreas
(with whom you exchanged a couple of messages regarding his comment),
and several specific comments from Stefan.  It is entirely reasonable
that two different people comment on different portions of the patch.
Sorry, but I see no "hunk by hunk" here.




This bug report was last modified 12 years and 280 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.