On Tue 2014-07-22 11:16:58, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> Sure, I agree. But as I thought that I would not change
> currentfunctionality, I would increase the chance that the patches were
> included. And it would of course also clarify this type of problem.
I'm trying to say that getting rid of the variables without changing
functionality might be wrong thing to do, for example in this case. It
looks like error handing is missing by mistake, and you are removing
traces saying that error handing is required here.
Dunno. Perhaps don't push patches where solution is not obvious?
Or push them but mark the place with fixme?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Hi
There is a lot in what you say.
In the beginning I send in a remark to the maintainer. It happened
absolutely nothing.
When I send out a patch that code is not used, then this code will be
reviewed. Which is the main purpose!
However, agree that this was perhaps an unusually clear solution.
I submit such a patch now.
Kind regards
Rickard Strandqvist
2014-07-22 11:27 GMT+02:00 Pavel Machek <[email protected]>:
> On Tue 2014-07-22 11:16:58, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Sure, I agree. But as I thought that I would not change
>> currentfunctionality, I would increase the chance that the patches were
>> included. And it would of course also clarify this type of problem.
>
> I'm trying to say that getting rid of the variables without changing
> functionality might be wrong thing to do, for example in this case. It
> looks like error handing is missing by mistake, and you are removing
> traces saying that error handing is required here.
>
> Dunno. Perhaps don't push patches where solution is not obvious?
>
> Or push them but mark the place with fixme?
>
> Pavel
>
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html