On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:40AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > It seems that you want to go from one extreme (everything in one > patch) to the other extreme (incremental patches for one single > feature)
But you're asking me to wait for stuff to be reviewed. Like it or not that means: one big patch. Or no patches at all: if I have to bore myself with patching and unpatching, diffing, cross-tree commits, et cetera, I'll just go play with frontends/qt2/ instead of messing around in the core. The administration of doing "nice" patches is just way too tedious. And what is the point when people are committing patches that are known to be broken anyway ? (cut and paste, bibitem). At least I *try* to not purposefully introduce bugs. If you review a patch and don't like something, you either say "no way", or "do it this way instead". The fact it's committed doesn't stop you doing that. If the whole house of cards is crap in your opinion then I can just back them all out again ... so what's the difference ? Half of the patches I do wait for review for are just ignored anyway ! > The name changing feks. But I would have committed that anyway, and it's trivially "correct" regards john
