From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12159: 24.1.50; vc-dir: Need a way to hide unregistered files Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:20:29 +0300 Message-ID: <83d32v7w8y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87pq71i7fy.fsf@gmail.com> <87d3312p4f.fsf@gmail.com> <871ujdpbqp.fsf@gmail.com> <87boigj2ti.fsf@gmail.com> <87zk60hqnv.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344799313 20106 80.91.229.3 (12 Aug 2012 19:21:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 12159@debbugs.gnu.org To: Jambunathan K Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 12 21:21:52 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T0djJ-00074o-3X for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:21:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58932 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0djH-0007J6-SG for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:21:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0djE-0007Iq-7S for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:21:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0djD-0000pG-78 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:21:36 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42127) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0djD-0000pC-3v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:21:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T0drO-0002BQ-UG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12159 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 12159-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12159.13447997418278 (code B ref 12159); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12159) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Aug 2012 19:29:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51672 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T0dqP-00029M-8w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:29:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:36874) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T0dqN-00029E-0Z for 12159@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:29:00 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M8N00000PLBHD00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 12159@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:20:29 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M8N000AOPQ4EY30@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:20:29 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87zk60hqnv.fsf@gmail.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:63079 Archived-At: > From: Jambunathan K > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:41:00 +0530 > Cc: 12159@debbugs.gnu.org > > I wish reviewers provide feedback which is comprehensive right from the > word go. Let me explain ... > > When I submitted my patch it was complete i.e., I did not present it > hunk-by-hunk. I re-worked the patch based on feedback and I have > demonstrated some seriousness in making the patch acceptable. > > Unfortunately, the review process here seems to have gone by "hunk by > hunk" mode. A small note here, a small note there. For something as > simple as this patch, why should we have 100 exchanges? > > I can't care less if you call my patch a crap or hold an opinion that I > should never enter a programmer's territory. It is not what I am > talking about. > > Reviewers have infinite time to review the patch. Let them collect > their notes and give a comprehensive list of what they think is > acceptable to them. > > I hope I am not placing an un-reasonable demand. > > We are talking of an implicit social contract that reviewers and patch > submitters should adhere to. Unfortunately, it is only the patch > submitters end of the contract that gets much emphasis. I'm sorry you feel this way. However, after reading the entire discussion, I see nothing but a reasonable process. Let me explain. Your original submission first got a general comment from Stefan suggesting a different approach. When you reworked the patch according to Stefan's suggestions, you got one comment from Andreas (with whom you exchanged a couple of messages regarding his comment), and several specific comments from Stefan. It is entirely reasonable that two different people comment on different portions of the patch. Sorry, but I see no "hunk by hunk" here.