From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:28:25 +0100 Message-ID: <21935.28745.376518.272137@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <1437373023-14884-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1437373023-14884-12-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <21932.63595.566823.211293@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <21934.8684.318670.874156@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <55AE272A.4020306@intel.com> <21934.10490.615041.203428@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com> <21934.11410.844215.554291@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <55AE30D4.8000009@intel.com> <21934.15393.528332.534956@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <55AE492D.7080204@intel.com> <21934.24721.304399.773580@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <55AE6871.6070903@intel.com> <21934.27603.498330.185762@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <55AEE4E6.5030508@intel.com> <1437554603.407.36.camel@citrix.com> <55AF6000.7010108@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55AF6000.7010108@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Chen, Tiejun" Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"): > > I then go through the comments one by one and either: > > > > * make the _complete_ code change, including adding the "Changes > > in vN" bit to the commit log and delete that comment from the > > reply > > Are you saying this case of resending this particular patch online? Here is an example of what Ian C is talking about: You failed to address all my comments before posting v10. That caused me to post this: This is now the third time I have posted that text. It is the fifth request or clarification I have had to make about this very small area. I have to say that I'm finding this rather frustrating. You should have been systematic. Like Ian C suggests. I do it that way too. Instead, you repeatedly left things undone. > Yes, in this case we're arguing, I was really trying to send a sample of > this code fragment to ask this before I sent out the complete change. No, your v10 series was not a "sample". It is of course OK to post a sample. But a reviewer will not read such a sample thoroughly; they will not look for all problems. The reviewer will look at the sample, so that the reviewer can understand your words. They will consider the aspects of the sample that are being discussed. They will not consider other aspects of the sample. You did post such a sample in <55AE2BB1.9030604@intel.com>. I read the sample, to understand what your words meant. Then later, you complained that: But indeed, before I post this whole patch online I also picked up this chunk of code to ask you to take a look that. Ie you complained that I did not thoroughly review your "sample". You cannot have this both ways. When you are posting a "sample", it is purely to illuminate the particular discussion. When you are posting a full patch for review, you must have addressed _every_ previous comment. Ian.