[pacman-dev] rejected?

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Tue May 8 12:05:06 EDT 2007

On 5/8/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > A few words would be nice ;-):
> > -rejected, but working on the bugs
> > -rejected, ignoring bugs
> > -reviewing patches
> Hi Nagy,
> Without trying to sound rude, here is why I haven't taken a closer
> look, although you definitely seem to make valid points:
> 1. Email titles like "IV/B (apply this on IV/A) blah..." are a
> turn-off. We all shouldn't have to follow 10 steps for what could be
> one single patch. The patches would be easier to review if they were a
> 1-step apply.
> 2. This is likely due to the language barrier, but I have a hard time
> understanding your explanations at times. I will go back and look at
> your emails soon and email you back for clarification on points I
> didn't understand. You may want to seperate some of your long
> descriptions into seperate paragraphs as well.
> 3. A lot of your emails were "this is a problem that needs to be
> fixed". We have a bugtracker for those type of reports, things that
> come to my email inbox without patches tend to get lost quickly.
> We do appreciate your help and investigation into the code, but
> realize that it doesn't help anyone if we spend time trying to figure
> out the problem you are addressing if you already have- we just need a
> better explanation.

Sorry about that Nagy.  I am definitely interested in your
contributions, and have been attempting to review some of the patches
when I get time.  As Dan had mentioned before, there is a slight
language barrier (I mean no offense at all) and sometimes it is
difficult to understand what you're trying to fix, or why it is

If you could resubmit the patch that was in 3 parts (A, B, and C),
that would be great too - it's generally better to resubmit a patch
than to patch the patch.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list