[pacman-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Fix some warning that cppcheck gave back

[Laszlo Papp]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Laszlo Papp <djszapi2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > opendir(path)) == (DIR *)-1 is maybe the result of miss understanding of
> the man
> > page, if the opendir wasn't successful it gives back NULL instead of
> '(DIR *)-1'.
> >
> > The ambiguity while cycle with EINTR condition was refactored for a do {}
> while ()
> > cycle to be easier to read/understand
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp <djszapi at archlinux.us>
> > ---
> >
> > I was very supprised on this post. It was very rude and not constructive
> in this
> > way even I did bad thing in it. I've never said I'm proficient and I do
> failures
> > sometimes because of missunderstanding e.g., and I don't think it was a
> big
> > error that can't be corrected. but Dan! I spend(spent?) with my freetime
> > with helping you and pacman... I've never experienced this nowhere in any
> community
> > when some one try to be helpful and he is named foolish and crappy. I
> think so it's
> > absolutely uncorrect and unfair... Why is it hard to keep the contructive
> way ?
> > It would be much easier for you and me too.
>
> I'm glad the context was preserved here so I know specifically what I
> said that was out of line, but I apologize if you took it that way.
>
> With that said, I'm going to lay out some things that may or may not
> be what you wanted to hear. But it is for my sake that I say these
> things, so I apologize if we can't all agree.
>
> If a patch is "trivial" but takes three review cycles and continues to
> be problematic, and it keeps getting resubmitted without much evidence
> of it changing for the better (and even adding more broken stuff),
> people on this list start to get a bit rough on the edges. We aren't
> doing it out of spite; we do it because our time is worth something
> too.


I try to get more knowledge and be more useful from day to day, so I'm not
an expert now, but if these patches are trivial, why are these issues in the
codebase, or why weren't they corrected ? And at last why didn't Xavier e.g.
mention it, just a missing describtion for that nonsense correction ? (I
know you won't answer Dan, and i don't wait any response)


> Many of us could have taken this patch, fixed the things I
> suggested, and got it in, but we like to not steal the credit from new
> people. This one has just not been easy. What more could we have said
> to be constructive? I'm not sure.
>
>
Nice to hear you don't like to steal the credit :)


> Foolish? Crappy? Did those words leave my mouth? I try to check my ego
> at the door as much as possible when reading mails on this list. I
> asked a legitimate question, maybe in a slightly sarcastic way as this
> was the third or so time this patch had crossed my inbox.
>
>
No need to be sarcastic, it can be very desctructive for a newbie. I saw
patches more than three times touch the inbox for that I thought it's a
simple fix, but I don't say it's trivial, because it's trivial for me but
for others not.


> We're all volunteers here. I try to help out new people as much as
> possible, and I realize the code isn't always easy to get at first
> glance, but we only have so much time to hand hold and we all like to
> spend at least some of our time doing coding on our own (and not
> having to write novels like this email).
>
>
No need such a mail, if you're not sarcastic, but helpful, I think so. (you
could give more good advices, instead of talking about this)


> I will not continue on this topic after this email, so don't expect
> another reply from me if anyone replies to this. I'd rather be coding
> or something.
>
> -Dan
>
>
Good Luck!

Best Regards,
Laszlo Papp