"Valik" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > We are generally willing to fix up stylistic problems. What we need
> > to do is make it *clear* that we are willing to do so, and that our
> > comments are usually meant to convey a sentiment like: "If you're
> > resubmitting this (for substantive reasons) anyway, would you mind
> > fixing these stylistic issues as well?".
> I think you need to "get with the boys" on this one. Branko clearly
> states, "...because even a technically perfect patch wouldn't be
> accepted if style wasn't correct" which is contrast to what you are
> saying above. I think one of the minor problems is there isn't an
> official stance on the matter and it's up to an individual committer as
> to how much effort they are willing to expend.
No, "the boys", or rather, the boy, needs to get with me :-).
Branko was simply wrong. And I'll bet he will admit that if he
happens read this followup. (*He* might not apply such a patch, but
many, many such patches have been applied. And, actually, he probably
would too, if it were good in other ways.)
> Then I've done all I set out to do. My goal was to make you think.
> I've tried to keep things light-hearted enough so as not to piss anybody
> off but to also get your wheels to turning to find a solution. I've
> also tried to use redundancy to repeat myself (!) to point out to things
> I think are most important. Just to sum up real quick (for another
> added layer of redundancy), a tidy program is a good idea to invest some
> time in acquiring and working on the perception to be less stylistically
> focused. If you do the former, then the perception will be changed by
> default since the quantity of stylistic comments will decrease
Any help with the tidy program thing would be most appreciated (I've
never used one myself, so I'm starting from zero on that).
> And again, as with before, I'm not trying to call anybody out, not even
> Branko. I'm only taking what I see and interpreting it (And trying not
> to be a spin-doctor in the process). I have to emphasize things a bit
> because the intended audience is so close to the problem that the best
> way to get them to see it is to make it really big. That's all I'm
> trying to do.
For future reference, it is not necessary. For example, Mark's post
was already enough, and he didn't overstate his case. You don't need
to either; the fact that you got your desired result by overstating
does not prove that overstating was necessary. You would have gotten
the same result without it :-).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Jul 25 23:28:59 2005