[mythtv] Re: [mythtv-commits] Re: Ticket #385: DVBChannel cleanup
ijr at case.edu
Wed Sep 28 15:36:08 UTC 2005
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 05:57 am, Colin McCormack wrote:
> > #385: DVBChannel cleanup
> > Changes (by ijr):
> > * resolution: => invalid
> > * status: reopened => closed
> > Comment:
> > Then stop wasting my time and submit a patch without unnecessary
> > in it.
> Wow. I have seldom seen such incivility for such a clueless reason,
> unless an underdosage of major tranquilizers was involved.
> Someone cleans up some code for you, removing redundant includes, and
> they are accused of wasting your time. They make the point that every
> compilation by every user is going to be slightly longer because of the
> boneheaded inclusion of unnecessary include files, and you accuse *them*
> of wasting *your* time?
I stated exactly why I wouldn't apply the patch in bug #376. There were lots
of completely meaningless changes and reordering of statements. I closed the
bug. The patch was broken up into smaller parts and resubmitted (#378, #385,
#386) with _exactly_ the same changes, nothing removed in a new bugs. I
closed the bugs with the same *engineering* reason as before - extraneous
changes included in the patch. The patch was reopened saying that I should
accept the patch anyway, ignoring the fact that it includes changes that
accomplish exactly nothing.
I happen to think that that all of the above is wasting my time, starting with
the resubmission of the exact same patch that I had already rejected once
(for *a valid engineering reason*, no less).
Additionally, I doubt that the include file changes have been tested on the
various platforms that Myth supports - they often require quite different
sets of includes.
> I seem to have wandered into the last reel of The Cable Guy.
> If you have a reasonable (*cough*) engineering reason to deny the patch,
> in my opinion you should state it.
I did. Try reading the bug logs before making baseless accusations.
More information about the mythtv-dev