Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Clarification for general change acceptance | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Fri, 12 May 2017 10:23:37 +0200 |
| |
> Developer reputation matters for somewhat controversial > patches being applied as well as non-controversial and > obviously correct patches being ignored.
I am aware that there are more factors involved.
> Your reputation means most all of your patches fall into > the latter category.
I hope that this situation will evolve into directions which you would prefer more.
> You have produced many trivial patches
This is true.
I started my concrete contributions to Linux software modules with simple source code search patterns.
> that have caused new defects.
A few unwanted programming mistakes just happened somehow.
> That is simply unacceptable.
Glitches are not desired as usual.
> Especially when you don't immediately fix the problems you cause.
I find my response times reasonable to some degree so far.
Remaining open issues can be clarified by a corresponding constructive development dialogue, can't they?
> If you would stop producing the trivial and instead > channel your efforts into actual bug fixing and logic > corrections and not just style modifications with no > code impact, your patch acceptance rate would increase.
I find your conclusion appropriate.
But I will come along source code places where I am going to update details which are also trivial.
> I have given you many suggestions for actual structural > improvements to kernel code.
I have got an other impression. There were a few occasions where advanced change possibilities were proposed.
> You have ignored _all_ of them and I am unlikely to try > to interact with you any longer until your wheat:chaff > ratio changes.
Can the efforts for deleting questionable error messages around Linux memory allocation functions improve this situation?
Regards, Markus
| |