Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: > 12.11.2015 20:53, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 06.11.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Michael Tokarev: >>> From: Cao jin <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> >>> Also change the misleading definition of macro OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> >> >> Michael, please *STOP* queuing QOM patches! You merged the unfixed > > I think I do more harm to the project than good, these days.
Nope, you'd have to try much harder for that ;-P Mistakes happen. Grieving over them isn't productive. Looking for clues on how to avoid repetition can be. In this particular case, you tried to help out a maintainer, and the maintainer didn't like the result. Possible strategy: 0. Make sure to cc: maintainers in your reply to the patch. 1. If you judge the patch not to be trivial, say so. 2. For maintainers who prefer not to be helped out by -trivial (in your subjective judgement), reply that you're going to take this only if the maintainer gives his blessings. 3. Else, do your usual review and "applied to -trivial" thing. Additionally, add any missing cc: maintainer(s) when you commit. Perhaps you can even automate this step. That way, they get cc'ed on your pull request, too, giving them a last chance to veto a patch they missed / ignored until then. Basically, just what you do know plus systematic cc'ing. Thanks for serving as -trivial maintainer! [...]
