OK, again to clarify this,
I don't wanna arguing about commit message.
Even I didn't oppose and mentioned about it in the replies.
I agree on the more descrive commit msg also.
My first asking was this,
"is this right the evas_textblock_cursor_format_is_visible_get() cares the NULL
returning?"
because you mentioned evas_textblock_cursor_format_is_visible_get() should
verify there's a format node...
I just expecting you confirm it simply.
And depend on the answer, my patch(second version) to be made again.
------------------------------------
-Regards, Hermet-
-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom Hacohen"<tom.haco...@samsung.com>
To: <enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Cc:
Sent: 2013-10-07 (월) 18:43:24
Subject: Re: [E-devel] [EGIT] [core/efl] master 01/01: Revert "evas/textblock -
null check."
On 07/10/13 09:14, ChunEon Park wrote:
> Yes there was a misunderstanding. I agree.
>
> But I didn't disagree on Tom's request and revert.
> I agree on him(lack of commit message) and you.
I'm glad you agree with that, as that was the only thing I was arguing
about.
>
> I just wondered one of the sentence in his revert comment.
>
> "I'm the only maintainer of."
> "this commit looks wrong. evas_textblock_cursor_format_is_visible_get should
> verify there's a format node..."
Clarification: to whoever is reading this email, this is a *HUGE* misquote.
Full commit message:
"
I'm sorry, but those kind of commit messages are unacceptable for code
I'm the only maintainer of. It's bad enough that to have them in the
project in general, but this I won't accept.
I wanted to review this commit, but the lack of explanation about what
you are trying to fix and why you think this is the good fix
prevents me
from doing my job. However, without really looking too much into it,
this commit looks wrong. evas_textblock_cursor_format_is_visible_get
should verify there's a format node...
Please come up with a better commit message and re-commit.
"
When reading this in context it's pretty obvious that:
1. I wrote the "I'm the only maintainer of" regarding the commit
message, not the code.
2. I asked you to explain why you think it's right, and what it breaks.
3. I explicitly said I didn't look too much into it, but just from
skimming (without checking), it doesn't look right.
To avoid confusion: let's make this thread about the culture and the
commit message and just submit a patch to the ML with a better
explanation or commit a fix with better explanation (former is better).
I never questioned the fix, I just said it's impossible for me to know
if it's correct.
--
Tom.
>
> So I replied on the revert mail.
>
> "If so,
> why do you leave the evas_textblock_cursor_format_is_visible_get() to return
> NULL if you think it must verify the fnode?"
>
> Because the function is totally considered to return NULL.
>
> That's all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
