Re: [PATCH v3 trivial 0/7] Miscellaneous Trivialities

[Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:04:17 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:

> On 08/20/2013 10:32:02 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:19:37 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>>
>>> Hence asking if we really needed
>>> three separate commits to accomplish something that didn't actually
>>> need to be done in the first place.)
>>> ...
>>> Actually my objection is that it's not worth the churn in the commit logs.
>>
>> Naturally, we don't NEED three separate commits! Squash all of them
>> into one commit if that's something worth hissing about.
>>
>> Do you need help with the relevant commands?
> 
> The correct response to someone disagreeing you is to patronize them?

That's rich.

> Query: did you notice the phrase "something that didn't actually need
> to be done in the first place"? You quoted it and everything, so I'm
> assuming you ignored it intentionally rather than simply not noticing.

I quote my quote of your text:

  > Hence asking if we really needed three separate commits to accomplish
  > something that didn't actually need to be done in the first place.)
  > ...
  > Actually my objection is that it's not worth the churn in the commit
  > logs.

Query: Do you not even know what you write, documentation maintainer?

>> Because you are the former and current maintainer of large and active
>> projects, I'd expect you to *appreciate* the value of taking in
>> fine-grained patches for REVIEW (even if you don't appreciate their
>> sum total).
> 
> I reviewed them. The result of that review is what you're objecting to.

I'm objecting to your style.

> You misunderstand the nature of the position: this is volunteer
> janitorial work. I don't get paid for it

Some janitors mop whole floors. Other janitors scrub patches of moldy
grout with a toothbrush. There's no reason for one to belittle the
other---especially when *both* aren't getting paid.

> (Your indignant and self-important reaction to that evaluation _has_ changed
> my opinion of your technical judgement and likelihood of listening to
> you in the future, so that's something.)

My sentiments exactly.

You are a master of irony.

> Nothing stops one of the other maintainers from taking your patch over
> my objections. Most documentation goes in through other trees anyway,
> generally as part of series with code and documentation components. But
> _my_ evaluation remains "NAK".

Good grief. The destiny of these trivial patches is irrelevant at this
point in our conversation; please reflect instead on the destiny of
your relationship with other people.