Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, 01 Apr 2020 11:51 +0200: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:34:39AM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, 01 Apr 2020 10:31 +0200: > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 01:43:28AM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:23 +00:00: > > > > > Please add a docstring. > > > > > > > > I've gone ahead and added this to STATUS so it doesn't slip through any > > > > cracks. Feel free to remove the -0 vote once it's been addressed (you > > > > needn't round-trip through me for this). > > > > > > Wouldn't it be enough if you or someone else added docstrings on trunk > > > at some convenient point in time in the future, and then nominated that > > > revision as a regular follow-up change if it's deemed important enough? > > > > > > > No, it wouldn't. You committed two new functions without docstring. > > That's a bug in your commit. You are expected to fix it. > > I am not questioning that functions need docstrings in principle. > I am just questioning the urgent need to backport such docstrings. > > I would understand your objection if these were public API functions. > But these are local static functions, so the docstrings don't serve > the public. They will only be read by SVN developers. > > Why is it not good enough if we put these docstrings on trunk without > also having to worry about them becoming part of the next release? > > I am just suggesting that you already did enough by just asking for > the docstrings to be added on dev@ in response to my commit. That's > a perfectly reasonable request. I am only questioning the need to add > this request to STATUS also. From the RM perspective every little thing > in STATUS contributes to delaying the release.
Adding something to STATUS does not signify an "urgent need to backport" it and does not make it a release blocker. Thanks for addressing the commit review. However, I can't end this mail without saying that I feel your conduct in these threads has been wanting, even hostile. Daniel
