From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752842AbXCUNvA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:51:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752847AbXCUNvA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:51:00 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:46552 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752842AbXCUNu7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:50:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:50:33 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: Josh Boyer , Matt Mackall , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Frank Haverkamp , Christoph Hellwig , David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22 take 3] UBI: Unsorted Block Images Message-ID: <20070321135033.GA7235@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Artem Bityutskiy , Josh Boyer , Matt Mackall , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Frank Haverkamp , Christoph Hellwig , David Woodhouse References: <20070319170838.GP4892@waste.org> <1174328188.30079.46.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070319195442.GT4892@waste.org> <1174338393.17249.53.camel@sauron> <20070319213628.GW4892@waste.org> <1174393549.17249.101.camel@sauron> <20070320135231.GA6043@thunk.org> <1174406395.30079.139.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070320220312.GC29493@thunk.org> <1174466675.17249.182.camel@sauron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1174466675.17249.182.camel@sauron> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:44:35AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > As I mentioned to you in IRC, in the future if there is pending > > changes in response to reviewer comments, it might be a good idea to > > mention that, so that reviewers know not make those comments again, or > > worry that the comments had been ignored. > > Teo, I wrote you 2 times that your point was understood and this would > be fixed. You should not think your comments are ignored because they > are not. Artem, no need to be defensive. You did tell me that you were going to address them; but then you resubmitted patches where they weren't address. Normally, patch authors take all of the comments, clear them all, and then in the next repost of the patch, either explain why it wasn't feasible to handle some of the comments, *OR* why some of the comments were so hard to handle that they wouldn't be handled until a future version of the patch. Furthermore, in a patch of the size that you are submitting, a listing of what you *did* fix would also be good. And at this point, I don't doubt that you will at some point going to heed my comments --- but note that doing so will involve a massive refactorization of the code, which will tend to invalidate the reviews done of this current (take 3) version of the patches; so I am bit curious what was your motiviation in reposting this round of the patches. Believe it or not, the people who are responding on this thread are trying to help. Otherwise they would just be ignoring you and UBI. Keeping this thought in mind and trying to help them, where in some cases perhaps they are lacking in the same knowledge and experience and those who have been working on UBI and have spent many months thinking about the problem, may help keep things more constructive. Regards, - Ted