I'm sorry Markus. I'm just trying to do a thorough code review. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Markus Neteler <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Vaclav Petras <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Markus Neteler <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > However, here again, even when I leave aside the discussion above, there is > > a typo: > > > > G_warning(_("Input vector map <%s> is 3D"), opt.from->answer); > > G_warning(_("Input vector map <%s> is 3D"), opt.to->answer); > > > > The second should say "Output...". > > No, it i correct. > > > Now you have to change that in both branches. > > No. > Please read manual or source code.
I should probably do that, but the message should encourage user to read the manual. The current message is not informing about the the problem. > > And that's the problem. It would be better to refine it first in > > trunk and then backport it all together. > > Please don't change it before inspecting the source code. > You refer to "output" which I didn't touch. > > > This happens quite often - list of commits containing these two pairs of > > commits (change, its immediate backport, fix of change, its immediate > > backport). > > Do you refer to me?? > Just check my backports and my error rate on it. I do a lot of this > dirty work and I don't think that I have a high error rate here. You surely do a lot of backporting work which others do not. I'm definitively not criticizing that. I'm sorry it sounded like this. What I'm criticizing is a general practice of backporting things at the very same time they are committed to trunk. > > Sure we make mistakes, but this is unnecessary clutter. > > Wait. > Before writing all this > - read the source code first > - check why I made the change. See also other people having the same issue. > - help to fix the real problem (#2734) rather than writing unrelated > comments here. I might be able to fix it, but for the sake of code quality, I don't want to do it not before I will understand the motivation behind the existing code. > > Moreover, > > then we claim how many commits was done in release branch between releases, > > but in fact significant portion of it are just these fixes of fixes which > > should have been backported after the code matured in trunk (my claim is > > that even simple code needs maturation). > > Generally agreed. But in this case not. > > best, > Markus > > PS: IMHO this code discussion should rather happen in grass-dev than grass-user. That's right.
_______________________________________________ grass-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
