Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:45:18PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>>> Also, this isn't really related to performance; it belongs on /trunk. Next
>>> time, you could send this with a [PATCH] marker in the subject line, and
>>> a full committer could +1 you to commit that to directly to /trunk.
>>>
>> Yes, please send patches if you have a change that isn't direclty
>> related to your performance improvements work.
>>
>> The scope of the branch is not "stefan2 makes all of his commits there",
>> it's "this branch is for stefan2's performance-related work".
>>
This was a special case because without the patch, my load
tests wouldn't run. So, I could at least kind of justify the process
violation to myself as "performance-related work".
If I'm not mistaken, there are no outstanding behavioral patches
left that I would need for my performance improvements.
>
> By the way, please don't take all this as "everybody is jumping on
> Stefan F." We are really grateful for the performance improvements
> going on on your branch and look forward to seeing them in Subversion.
> Your changes are just the first time this has happened in a while,
> and we're using them as an opportunity to do a bit of group
> re-education. So please don't feel singled out. :)
>
Fair enough and no offense is taken. I'm used to criticism; it is
part of my job.
> (We will shortly be chastising Daniel S. for a similar transgression. :P )
>
Lucky us that Leviticus doesn't mention that particular crime.
At times, all that stoning business gets a bit tiresome ... ;)
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2010-08-12 22:08:53 CEST