On Sunday 24 of November 2024 07:04:02 Andrew Randrianasulu via tde-users wrote:
вс, 24 нояб. 2024 г., 05:54 Slávek Banko via tde-users <
users@trinitydesktop.org>:
On Sunday 24 of November 2024 00:33:52 deloptes via tde-users wrote:
I write nothing to TGW right now since there lie tens my previous patches!
There are a lot of patches (PRs) in the queue there. No one complains, except you. It is your free choice. I personally see it as symbiosis. And at some point of time someone picks up the patch works it out and it either accepted or rejected.
There were situations where thorough research clearly showed that the proposed patch did not solve the cause of the problem, but one specific consequence - only hides the real cause of the problem. While the other potential consequences would remain unresolved and would probably wait for the next hack, which would again solve the individual consequences, not the cause. While the author fundamentally refused any cooperation in finding a real cause. As a result, real repairs of the causes of the problems were merged instead of the proposed hack.
To be honest I (as non-developer who somewhat forced to be) tend to see things more from "forever novice" perspective: TDE is big codebase, and assuming someone can jump right in and prepare professional quality solution you simply can merge ... is a bit unrealistic?
yes, people might be uncomfortable to extreme if you ask them to do professional analysis even without telling them *how* it done (assuming here they, like you, know it by heart).
I guess it hurts both ways .....
Yes, it is a large volume of code and it can be difficult to get a thorough overview. But yes, even without obtaining a thorough overview, someone can do a good finding of a specific bug and prepare a good fix. For example, thanks to backtrace from the grash. And there is no problem to accept and merge a good patch from anyone.
Likewise, there is no problem, if someone suggests a patch, we give him comments that there is a need for some modifications and thanks to the mutual cooperation between the author and the revising after a while we move to a good patch, which we then like to merge. This is then beneficial for both sides - the author gets feedback and will gain better overview and experience, the project will gain repair and improvements.
However, when someone gives a patch that, for example, removes a line with a call to release memory, at first glance it looks like an incorrect solution. When the author on the comment: "This looks like this will require a more thorough examination to solve the real cause of the problem," he responds by calling: "No, it works for me, I will not do anything else! You have to merge it as I did it!”, that's a problem. When, after some time and thorough examination, it confirms that the problem was elsewhere and the solution was different, but the author still shouts: "My fix was correct! You should have merge it as I did it!", this is indeed a problem to try to cooperate with such an author.
Cheers Slávek --