26/05/2020 15:57, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 26-May-20 1:45 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/05/2020 12:52, Burakov, Anatoly: > >> On 26-May-20 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> > >>>>> And therein lies the problem: Thomas (David, etc.) doesn't look at every > >>>>> area of the code, he relies on us to do it. However, *he* is doing the > >>>>> committing, and fixing up patches, etc. - so, i can't really say things > >>>>> like, "hey, your indentation's wrong here, but Thomas will fix it on > >>>>> apply" because that's me pushing more work onto Thomas, something i > >>>>> don't think i have the moral right to do :) > >>> > >>> You can send a new version of the patch with the details fixed, > >>> publicly readable, reviewable, and ready to be pushed. > >> > >> To be completely honest, that's something that's never occurred to me, > >> and it sounds like a great idea. The downside is that taking over > >> someone else's patch and resubmitting it may be taken the wrong way :) > >> (and could also lead to confusion e.g. regarding versioning) > > > > It happens to me to continuing work started by someone else. > > I keep original authorship, add my Signed-off-by, increment versioning, > > and insert it in the original thread with --in-reply-to. > > No, confusion not on your side, but on the side of the person whose > patch has been taken over :)
I understood it correctly :) This is what I call collaboration. The best is to have good communication with its peers, then workload sharing becomes a detail, in my opinion.
