On Wednesday 22 December 2010 20:41:41 [email protected] wrote: > >The patch was very long on the mailinglist. That feedback was given that > >late illustrates that the current workflow of submitting patches works > >but is not perfect. Its also you (the cummunity) who has to decide > >whether you want this kind of "commit -> revert" or "commit -> fix" > >history more often than necessary. > > I think marking patches with expression name in the very beginning of the > topic ([SCONS][Nix-dev] ...) can help people notice the patches, but I > also think that sometimes discussions die away before all sides have > explained their positions in enough detail - and that is suboptimal.. >
In this particular case, I was doing the regular routine: I never delete nix ML posts from my mailbox if they contain patches and I didn't yet verify whether they were acted upon. I went thru the backlog to see if there's something left. I also assumed that something that's ignored is probably of low importance or not bad/disruptive enough. But I'm repeating myself. Unfortunately, I'm probably the only person who makes a systematic effort to catch ignored/lost patches, unfortunately there are many such patches and not only by Marc(so this effort pays off), and unfortunately I can do only so much due dillence when making the decision. My commit did start the discussion that should have happened anyway, and I clearly see us coming up with a better solution than either committing or rejecting the patch in question. I really hope this discussion will help us improve our workflow. -- Evgeny _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
