On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM, james <ja...@mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
> I don't buy it. You knew who it was from. > This was never questioned. > If there were issues with justification in the documentation with the > original patch set, surely that should be dealt with at the time it was > pulled in? > No explanation on why the patch worked was given. "It improves stability" was the closest I got. Given the patch was vouched by the previous maintainer of that code base it was merged. A deadlock on the code was found, so I reverted it. Greg is free to do a pull request on an patch that fixes the deadlock and has a proper explanation. > You appear to be saying that: > - patches are applied without discussion, and without adequate > justification on the ticket (were they checked in against a ticket?) > The patch was discussed ad-nausea on this mailing list and on the github pull request. You can look for both, both happened in the public. > - patches were reverted without any discussion with the author (was THAT > against a ticket?) Bad patches are reverted. There was no ticket, just a pull request on github. Greg's test could not be reproduced outside of his environment. > What is the process supposed to be? IS there a process? > Good code shaped in proper patches go in. Bad code goes out. It is that simple. Isn't this concerning? TCP/IP performance and async IO is rather important > to anyone doing server apps. I have no idea on what you're talking anymore. That there are bugs, or that I broken patch was merged in?
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list