From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26BCE1A0038 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:15:45 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:15:43 -0700 Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:15:42 -0700 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.18]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF811FF0027 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:03:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1BLFfsX27197440 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:15:41 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1BLFfEe032588 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:15:41 -0700 Received: from birb.localdomain ([9.83.0.6]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id u1BLFVrI031244; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:15:39 -0700 Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4087E2286E20; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:15:28 +1100 (AEDT) From: Stewart Smith To: Chris Austen Cc: andrew@aj.id.au, openbmc-patches@stwcx.xyz, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH phosphor-host-ipmid v2] IPMI Get IP Support In-Reply-To: <201602110544.u1B5ilIu004589@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com> References: <87io1vq04t.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1455140430-32605-1-git-send-email-openbmc-patches@stwcx.xyz> <1455140430-32605-2-git-send-email-openbmc-patches@stwcx.xyz> <1455152677.3153.81.camel@aj.id.au> <201602110544.u1B5ilIu004589@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+24~gbceb651 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:15:28 +1100 Message-ID: <87vb5vne33.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16021121-0017-0000-0000-0000120BFB6C X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:15:46 -0000 Chris Austen writes: > Open an issue to migrate to inet_pton. Fixing such things in code review is a much better approach. For the submitter, it helps get quick feedback on tehir code, and promotes a culture of examining your own code closely for things before submitting it. For maintainers and those who hare going to have to debug the systems, it means that it's *very* quick and cheap (in time) to point out odd things. Opening issues is approximately an order of magnitude slower. I can hit reply, type ten words and hit send in maybe a few seconds. For an issue, you're adding a couple of seconds in network round trip to browse to the project, go to issues, click create issue, then type a whole description of the problem because you don't have the context of what you're trying to reply to, and then manage the issue by adding tags, target releases, closing it when something is finally merged (and having the submitter have to open another pull request and keep track of it)... Urgh. Good code review provides a positive feedback loop of improvement to code with a positive reinforcement at the end of "patch merged!" Contrast this to the negative re-inforcement of filing bugs, of which there is little to no direct motivation for the code author to go and fix. -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.