Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > For fuck sake, the commit logs are there to look at! Sorry Christian, > it's not against you but I've already gone through the lengthy process > of proving myself to Lars and others. I am simply not going to do it > again.
It's not about proving yourself, it is about making the change understandable: giving a rationale and guidelines you followed for a given change so someone else can also follow them. >> If a change in a branch is so distributed/complicated/diffiult that it >> can't be converted into several managable patches, something else is >> needed. Perhaps some kind of overall documentation or design document >> (complementing the commit/log messages)? That would at least help other >> developers to review the changes inside the branch more effectively. >> Has anyone other than you reviewed the branch? > > How could I know? I am simply asking for help in merging this branch and > all I get is "prove us that this is the right thing to do". To this, I > say no, I am not going to prove anything. If nobody sees that my work is > beneficial to LyX, I'll simply maintain my own branch and forget about > you guys. Come on, don't be so childish. I don't know the others, but I think the general idea is correct and the right path. However... Let me give you my view about this review process: when you work hard in one area, you become sort of an expert in that area and in particular in the work you've done. For you explaining the changes (that is grouping related changes in one patch and adding one explanation for each patch, giving general guidelines you followed/problems you found) is some work but not impossible. For the others to understand the changes without explanation OTOH, they have to become experts in the area to understand your work; this is simply not reasonable. So the alternative is no review at all, and this has been ruled out. A/
