"Valik" <email@example.com> writes:
> [Karl Fogel asked:]
> > Do you mean you never said "...because even a technically perfect
> > patch wouldn't be accepted if style wasn't correct", which you were
> > quoted as saying?
> > If not, my apologies for trusting the quoter instead of checking the
> > primary sources myself.
> See the below message for the quote:
Grr. You essentially misquoted Brane, by leaving out crucial context.
Brane's message made his meaning clear. He was saying that a patch
won't be committed if its style isn't correct. He happened to use the
word "accepted" instead of "committed", but it's clear he meant
"accepted into Subversion", since his very next paragraph said this:
"But I certainly see the techincal side as being more important
than the stylistic side; if I didn't, I'd have made the final
tweaks myself and committed the patch by now."
It is obvious that he meant a stylistically imperfect patch can be
accepted by the committer, *tweaked by the committer*, and then
committed. Indeed, he even said that he'd do the tweaks himself!
You quoted one sentence fragment out of context in order to imply that
Brane said stylistically imperfect patches would be rejected out of
hand, even though he explicitly said the opposite. Here is the part of
which you did this:
> > 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.
Getting this right is important, so in detail, what happened here is:
- I said committers are willing to fix up stylistic problems (which
is exactly what Brane said he is willing to do)
- In response, you quoted Brane out of context in order to
demonstrate that he disagreed with me. This involved omitting
the part two sentences later where he said basically the same
thing I did!
Valik, you're slowly painting a rather inaccurate picture of how this
project operates. I worry that people are going to form impressions
based on your descriptions of how the developers behave, instead of
from watching how the developers actually behave. I wish you'd be
I'm done with this thread now. And I think you owe Brane an apology,
but that's your business.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Jul 26 21:43:36 2005