From owner-freebsd-current Wed May 29 13:48:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6DE37B410; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4TKm04j063104; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g4TKm00R063103; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200205292048.g4TKm00R063103@apollo.backplane.com> To: "David O'Brien" Cc: Julian Elischer , John Baldwin , FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII References: <20020529124434.A2156@dragon.nuxi.com> <200205292007.g4TK71YD062671@apollo.backplane.com> <20020529133747.B683@dragon.nuxi.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :> Furthermore, it is an extreme and inappropriate imposition on Julian :> to require that he extract all the alleged 'gratuitous braces and :> ()'s)' into a separate commit. : :Uh, no it isn't. That is the rules we operate under. This type of :request comes up _daily_, and is generally agreed upon by most :committers. Sorry, but the work involved is just part of making commits. I see the request come up a lot. Most of the requests and most of the justification appears to come from people who are acting in the role of net-police rather then for any reason actually related to development work. If you read the diffs separately in the midst of a review, then good for you! You are an exception to the rule. I find it a waste of time myself. I just diff the whole damn thing when I review the code so I can see everything context and do a single pass over it. It takes less time. Consider the amount of time Julian would have to waste to locate, separate, and commit the pieces, verses the amount of time the few (three?) developers likely to review his patches will waste going through the crud. In your case that amount of time wasted will be near 0 since you say you are looking at the crud along with the meat. Then consider which of the following actions is more appropriate: * Hey J, please separate out the whitespace/braces changes and make two separate commits before doing anything else. * Hey J, the patches look good but I sure would appreciate it if, the next time, you would get the whitespace/bracing changes committed and out of the way first. Don't worry about it this time. In regards to developer relationships and keeping things civil and less stressful on the lists, #(2) is the far better solution and, frankly, I think we should *CODIFY* that in the rules certain people seem to enjoy quoting so much. And that, David, is why the whitespace rules should be a 'rules of thumb' rather then a 'you will do this or else' rule. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message