Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm just saying
that the patch was mostly turned down because he didn't asked for other
devs permission to make the patch, not because of the quality of the patch
(or the feature) itself. That discourages people to make patches, and
I think that's *really* bad.
Don may have said that not discussing a change before submitting a
patch for it dooms the patch to failure, but I don't think that's true
at all. I think it just means that the chances the patch will solve
the problem in a way that is agreeable to those who matter is much
smaller. But if Chad had managed to hit on the magic formula that
everyone thought was a great solution, I think the patch would have
been accepted (after some inevitable discussion).
I'm making an observation. AFAIK such patches have never been accepted.
In this case, had Chad discussed the matter first, I think he would
have quickly found that there was little support for his syntax
extension, and he could have saved himself the trouble of implementing
it.
Yes. It's such a shame, when there are so many bugs open in Bugzilla,
that someone spends time on a patch which you can say apriori that it
will fail.
BTW, even my opDollar() patch has not recieved _any_ comment from Walter.
He made a negative comment about opPow(), so at this stage it's not
likely to get in. A single negative comment is typically the only
feedback you'll get. In this case, Walter made a negative comment
*before* the patch was made! In those circumstances, you're really
wasting your time.
