archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Felipe Contreras <>
Subject: Re: My patches
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:42:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20131012072450.GA21165@nysa

Felipe Contreras <> writes:

> Clearly, a lot of my patches have not been reviewed ...

I think the reason for it most likely is because you earned the Bozo
bit ($gmane/227602) in many reviewers' eyes.

I phrased it differently ($gmane/233347) at the beginning of this
cycle, but I'll say it one more time. I'll refrain from responding
to your messages with anything other than "looks good, thanks". A
patch from you that I do not understand the motivation behind it, or
a patch from you that attempts to solve a problem I see better ways
of solving the same, will not see the usual response from me that
requests a clarification (in the resulting code or in its
explanation in the proposed commit log message) or suggests an
improvement or an alternative.

Such a review comment and the discussion that follows it after a
patch is posted is an essential part of the collaborative
development process in this community and it has helped the quality
of our end product. We unfortunately saw time and again that the
process rarely works when the discussion involves your patches. A
review thread tends not to conclude with a useful patch but instead
descends into an unproductive centithread, frustrating reviewers and
discouraging other people from participating, and ends up draining
the energy from everybody involved, which is better spent elsewhere
to do the real work. It may be reviewers' fault (cf. $gmane/235277),
or maybe the blame lies elsewhere, but it does not change the fact
that we end up wasting a lot of energy without going anywhere.

In short, responding to your patch that is not a simple "looks good,
thanks" material wastes time, harming the community and hurting our
users. That was exactly the reason why you earlier were asked to
leave ($gmane/227750). So I'll try not to respond to them.

I haven't caught up with the list traffic yet, but the way the
discussion that followed a recent review ($gmane/235936) progressed
tells me that things haven't improved much, so the assessment above
still seems to hold true, at least to me.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-14 17:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-12  7:24 My patches Felipe Contreras
2013-10-12 16:18 ` Philip Oakley
2013-10-12 22:33   ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-14 17:42 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-10-14 21:40   ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-17 19:54     ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-17 21:44       ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-18 11:21         ` Max Horn
2013-10-18 11:41           ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-18 15:30             ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-10-18 15:49               ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-18 16:59               ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).