On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 7/25/2011 1:25 PM, Othman, Ossama wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Arjan van de Ven >> <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>**> wrote: >> >> On 7/25/2011 1:08 PM, Ossama Othman wrote: >> >> From ebf62aab3eb6058df67e914f094d67**24ca7515cc Mon Sep 17 >> 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Ossama Othman<[email protected] >> <mailto:ossama.othman@intel.**com <[email protected]>>> >> >> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:23:23 -0700 >> -Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Do not scale photo when moving in and >> out of fullscreen - BMC # 20900. >> +Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Do not scale photo when moving in and >> out of fullscreen - BMC # 20900. >> >> >> >> how does this solve any of the bugs? >> >> >> It's not clear why this is an issue since it has no effect on the code >> being patched. This is strictly a patch documentation related change >> automatically generated by "git format-patch". I merely wanted the patches >> to be consistently self-documented relative to the original tarball. >> > > maybe it's just me, but it looks like a mindset thing > > we're in deep "bugfix only" mode.... I would expect that to fix a bug, the > utmost minimum is done to fix that bug (eg add one clearly minimal patch for > said bug), both to minimize risk, and to ease review > (eg prove by obviousness that only the minimum is changing). > I accept that regenerating the two patches in question increased the review burden slightly. That's fair, and I will take steps to avoid that in the future. However, the actual diff inside the patch that is applied to the tarball did not change. I made sure of that. Only portions of the patch that are not applied to the code were updated. There was no code change related risk. for me, "oh it makes git-format-patch easier" has no place in that > discussion.. or could even be part of a thought process while in this > mindset. > Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything like that at all. I could just as easily have run git format-patch in a way that didn't update the e-mail portion of the patches from previous SR, thus avoiding this discussion entirely. My goal was simply to have consistency in the patch/set numbering between the patches themselves. It was no easier nor harder to do that. As I said above, I'll refrain from generating the patches in this manner to minimize review burden. > oh well... not everyone is yet in the bugfix-only mindset I suppose > How is this comment constructive? -Ossama
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-packaging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
