From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jambunathan K Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12159: 24.1.50; vc-dir: Need a way to hide unregistered files Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:10:56 +0530 Message-ID: <87r4rbj3uf.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87pq71i7fy.fsf@gmail.com> <87d3312p4f.fsf@gmail.com> <871ujdpbqp.fsf@gmail.com> <87boigj2ti.fsf@gmail.com> <87zk60hqnv.fsf@gmail.com> <83d32v7w8y.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344800504 28480 80.91.229.3 (12 Aug 2012 19:41:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:41:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 12159@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 12 21:41:44 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 1T0e2d-0004R7-Op for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:41:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60347 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0e2c-0001Nz-Ua for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:41:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0e2a-0001Nu-AY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:41:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0e2Z-0007Vf-20 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:41:36 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42143) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T0e2Y-0007VV-Sg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:41:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T0eAk-0002d0-Bu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:50:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Jambunathan K Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:50:02 +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=B12159.134480096210051 (code B ref 12159); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12159) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Aug 2012 19:49:22 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51689 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T0eA6-0002c4-18 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:49:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44]:44650) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T0eA3-0002bw-4f for 12159@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:49:20 -0400 Original-Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so7880924pbb.3 for <12159@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=ady5jHETWccl2gHLzKAD6SXjWb1mm7Q452Fh7VhP5Qs=; b=HAkbwdDjtbGDvywBjLv8DT2xJI4sVvva6v9543uxiw9eyHKYQ61fqNr3b4M/uYEunT KDUWfEYmUwLQ5cR7U9pp7fNJ468RDFPdWcEhwwG+5jnkgkE7B/VeJWum09JlOjYbEPrF vaeaAHSfEX/exCHKpqUKrlXMgLhIUxNtLUDbYseTWwZlU8nMaD4ruMfjDjil/1p/Rod+ ZsLpW5pHF6xgKJ7zIyUHt2BSTp+SBeQre0Y/bam3IC8n+sqAAISE7LvRnXVTTxSxPgAT f+r8UonW1zCHFrqgvjeWzxoY5CAu2KlrjWFCzcsfIk9m1eYq4t09FEpYZHSYkoHHk9P7 uyMA== Original-Received: by 10.68.231.168 with SMTP id th8mr14567448pbc.14.1344800450076; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from debian-6.05 ([101.62.48.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wf7sm3809314pbc.34.2012.08.12.12.40.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:40:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83d32v7w8y.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:20:29 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) 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:63080 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> 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. I really feel frustrated. More efforts have gone in the patch than what the patch actually shows. I switched from Windows XP to Debian. I have downloaded 3 ISOs. I had to get my 3G-Modem working. I have to learn Bazaar and put up with the "stream of consciousness" style that the two articles in Emacswiki adopts. (I remember my troubles making even limited progress with Ulysess, Portrait of artist as an young man or the Sound and Fury.) ,---- | http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/BzrForEmacsDevs | http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/BzrForEmacsCasualDevs `---- More importantly, the persistent merge conflicts with the Changelog that I created. (I have grown wiser now.) > Your original submission first got a general comment from Stefan > suggesting a different approach. Considering that I have submitted a patch, "general comment" could have been avoided in first place. > 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. Ah! programmers. I am trying to communicate how I feel. Don't apply logic in human affairs. Let me offer a branch of olive: Have I heard what all I have to hear on this patch. If yes, I will make one more attempt at re-submitting it.