On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 02:39:59PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> Let's not hold up _real_ improvements from cosmetic arguments. > > Let me repeat what I believe I said previously for clarification: > I sometimes make comments about minor issues that I note while reading > through a patch but do not feel strongly about. These comments I prefix > with "nit:". I consider them suggestions that I'm happy to see patch > submitters follow at their own discretion. I don't expect further > discussion of nits, nor do I consider such discussion necessary. > I'm happy to see nits applied, I'm not unhappy to see them not applied. > > Something similar applies to things I mark "unrelated:". These monikers > I apply to issues that I believe to be valid, but orthogonal to the patch > under discussion. I do not consider them issues that should hold up or > block a patch, but rather result in further patches, bug tracker entries, > FIXME comments or whatever. I raise the issue in the context of the patch > because I notice it in the context of the patch and it seems better to > talk about and possibly fix the issue rather than keep it mum. > > Does it maybe make sense to adopt this as a sort of global policy? > > Diego
nit: Diego isn't doing his summer of code project. Jason _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
