Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:45:18PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Also, this isn't really related to performance; it belongs on /trunk. Next
time, you could send this with a [PATCH] marker in the subject line, and
a full committer could +1 you to commit that to directly to /trunk.
Yes, please send patches if you have a change that isn't direclty
related to your performance improvements work.
The scope of the branch is not "stefan2 makes all of his commits there",
it's "this branch is for stefan2's performance-related work".
This was a special case because without the patch, my load
tests wouldn't run. So, I could at least kind of justify the process
violation to myself as "performance-related work".
If I'm not mistaken, there are no outstanding behavioral patches
left that I would need for my performance improvements.
By the way, please don't take all this as "everybody is jumping on
Stefan F." We are really grateful for the performance improvements
going on on your branch and look forward to seeing them in Subversion.
Your changes are just the first time this has happened in a while,
and we're using them as an opportunity to do a bit of group
re-education. So please don't feel singled out. :)
Fair enough and no offense is taken. I'm used to criticism; it is
part of my job.
(We will shortly be chastising Daniel S. for a similar transgression. :P )
Lucky us that Leviticus doesn't mention that particular crime.
At times, all that stoning business gets a bit tiresome ... ;)
-- Stefan^2.
