On 9/16/2012 00:04, Alistair Crooks wrote:
I'm interested to know why you think that commenting why a change is made is a bad thing. Now, granted, not every patch has historically had a comment, but that springs mostly from 15 years ago - I'd like to think that over time, we gain as much information in the patch itself about why it was needed.
That is not the situation. Thomas asked me to start add comments to patches and I have been doing that since. Maybe not every patch, but the majority of them. He also asked me to start sending patches upstream and I have started doing that. The patches for Racket I did today have already been incorporated.
As I said before: Not every patch needs a comment and we shouldn't be expected to add comments to years-old patches. If you tweak it, fine, add it while you are there like licensing is handled.
Information and its sharing is a good thing; please continue to practise this. On the "I don't consider your rules workable/viable/sane, so stuff you" issue, I'd encourage you to reconsider. I wouldn't want to be thought of by others as being irresponsible in the way I approach things in pkgsrc; I would hope that other pkgsrc developers would share my attitude in this regard.
If I read between the lines David's comment correctly, pkglint was altered specifically for me. I don't consider that respectful at all. Changing a warning to error isn't going to make me do something I wasn't going to do before. Quite the opposite.
And finally, I'd also encourage you to treat your co-developers with the respect that you would like to be shown yourself.
You are completely blowing this out of proportion. No, I don't consider a missing patch comment "an error". If the pkglint tool defaults are going to be inane, then I'm either not going to use it or I'm going to disable the absurd part. How I work internally can not be offensive to others. My body of work over these months stands on its own merit.
John