Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add automation support for DP Compliance (Rev 6)

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com> wrote:
> As far as I know, I have addressed the review comments from previous
> round and answered the questions/concerns that you had either in the
> M-L or in IRC.  May be answering them on IRC created some confusion
> and you thought that it was unanswered. I will reply to all your
> review comments from previous round with what I have chnaged to
> address it or why it wasnt changed. That way we can make sure that
> none of them are getting ignored.  Hope this method works for you.

In general, all review comments *must* be addressed, either by
responding to them (ask for details or rationale or question them) or
making the changes in code. Sending new patch versions without
mentioning why review comments have not been addressed is not okay, and
rubs many people the wrong way, and I'm not immune to that.

IRC may be okay for discussion, but if the other person does not seem to
be around or does not acknowledge your comments, you can't assume the
other person will (or even can) read all of the backlog. For bigger
design discussions, it is usually best to recap the IRC discussions in a
reply to the mailing list (but that's general advice, and not really the
case here).

IIUC you're going to make additional changes to the series. Please make
them, and read the patches carefully before you send them. (Please note
that this is not intended as patronising advise; I read almost all of my
contributions as patches before I send them. And it's not unusual for me
to change stuff at this stage to make it easier to read and review.)

Let's drive this to conclusion now.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx