From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Rename remote_only to display_mode Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:51:39 +0100 Message-ID: <454B1F3B.1020603@op5.se> References: <200611021111.09434.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7v64dxl0bf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200611030841.05888.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) In-Reply-To: <200611030841.05888.andyparkins@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfweJ-0006Zo-P5 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:51:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753206AbWKCKvp (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 05:51:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753209AbWKCKvo (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 05:51:44 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:3984 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753206AbWKCKvo (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 05:51:44 -0500 Received: by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix, from userid 588) id 3C6816BD29; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:51:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6066BCD9; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:51:39 +0100 (CET) To: Andy Parkins Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Andy Parkins wrote: > Digressing a little: what is the polite form of patches for git? My strategy > with this set was to make each patch as small as possible to reach my end > point. If those patches were okayed on the list, I could then do a "make > more beautiful" patch, which is really nothing to do with the original > changes to functionality but would make the code prettier. I believe the order of preferrence goes: tested, concise, short. Linus has a nasty habit of ending his mails with "totally untested ofcourse", which is not a good strategy to adopt if you want your patches included. > Really I'm asking > what level of intrusiveness of patch is not considered rude? In making my > patches, should I ride rough-shod over current implementation and just do it > how I'd do it or should I try to fit in (as I did in this case)? > If you *need* to change something, change it. If you *want* to change something just because it's not written the way you would write it, back away. If you think some interface you're using needs clearing up (codewise or with extra comments), send a separate patch for that so the actual feature/bugfix you're sending in doesn't drown in cosmetic changes to the interfaces the patch uses/touches. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se