Patch Set 9: > Because it was already added by the previous commit.
Thanks for this comment, I was for some reason assuming that you were removing the code dup first and later adding the lc15 script (in which case the undup script would have been missing). Makes more sense now, but would have helped to indicate this sooner. > > script is instead added in another patch > > Yes, exactly - just like every other script modified by this commit > were added by some previous commit some time before this one. Really, Max? I am not trying to make your life harder, I am trying to indicate bad choices and discuss them in a frank way, and I always welcome being proved wrong. So please do so in clear terms. > > I would welcome if you could focus on the actual task instead > > The actual task was already solved 1 week ago, now I'm just > patiently follow-up on your nitpicking. It was solved badly, sorry. > > This is getting dragged on for way too long > > The only reason for this is your self-conflicting reviews: at first > you want lc15-commit to be before common commit, but when I make > this change you don't like that lc15 commit is self-contained with > all the parts it's used in 1 commit, so now I've changed the order > again hoping that it'll simplify your job as a reviewer. Let's keep to the actual subject matter. I was expecting you to commit one standalone lc15 script like the others, and then if you really have to also remove code dup across all the scripts, so that we can decide which parts of it to merge. Instead you decided to commit the lc15 *and* code dup removal script in one, i.e. already in a way forcing code undup on us, and then do the rest of the code undup in another patch. The code undup part isn't really needed, and I think it is a bad choice to mix the patches in this way. Yet my apologies for being confused by the patch ordering (which is hard to figure out on gerrit unfortunately). Frankly I would still prefer to have the code undup entirely separate from the lc15 script, but given where this has taken us, I don't really want to keep you up any longer. I still disagree, but would not veto someone else's +2, for the sake of getting somewhere. -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/2894 To unsubscribe, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: Ic48b1f75179b9008d65219dd5a47c1ab3b886408 Gerrit-PatchSet: 9 Gerrit-Project: osmo-bts Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Owner: Max <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: André Boddenberg <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: Max <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Neels Hofmeyr <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: neels <[email protected]> Gerrit-HasComments: No
