[Twisted-Python] [twisted.roundup at twistedmatrix.com: [issue291] app.getApplication cleanup]

[Andrew Bennetts]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:21PM +0200, Paul Boehm wrote:
> okay, and now someone explain to me what should motivate me to keep
> sending in patches? strports patches will be rejected too, moshez told
> me, so i'll have to fork that too.. 

Moshe is the maintainer of that particular section of code; it would take a
lot to convince other developers to override his judgement on those issues.
Certainly, a cosmetic patch such as this particular one (which merely
rearranged code, even if it does seems clearer) isn't something to get
particularly bothered about either way.

Also, here's what moshez said regarding strports patches (according to my
IRC log):
    <moshez> patches to make "strports more general" will be rejected until
    I see a use case. we tried to come up with a use case and didn't have
    success

Your paraphrase above ("strports patches will be rejected too, moshez told
me") implied something quite different to what he actually said (please
correct me if he said otherwise and I didn't see it!).  He requires use
cases to justify adding more features -- presumably if you want to add a
feature, you will have a reason, so I don't see this as being particularly
onerous :)

> and i had fixes for that loseConnection stuff months ago, i don't
> remember if i submitted them, because even back then i knew from
> experience that you won apply my patches, but i probably did.

I've searched the issue tracker and the mailing list, and can't find what
you're referring to.  Please post it to the issue tracker, so that we can
ignore it properly ;)

Seriously, it looks like you haven't sent that patch to us, so please do.

> you realize that you are unwilling to apply any of my patches, even when
> minor, and when i'm trying really hard to get them in?

I know some people feel that cosmetic patches that merely change code to
look prettier are more risk than they're worth; e.g. when True and False was
added to Python, Guido discouraged people from going through and making the
obvious cosmetic changes in the standard library because of the risk of
introducing bugs.  If a maintainer feels that the cost of applying and
encouraging cosmetic patches outweighs the small (and ultimately subjective)
benefit they give, then they will reject them.

I'm not sure of Moshe's specific reasons for this rejection, beyond what he
wrote in the issue tracker:
    "I'm going to reject it -- this code works, and is clear enough."
But judging from that, his point of view is similar to what I just
described.  He didn't see that patch as offering a substantial enough
improvement over the existing code to be worthwhile.  

Extrapolating from this one minor patch to "you are unwilling to apply any
of my patches" seems a little premature.  Are there others from you that
have been rejected that I don't know about?

> i'll submit my proxy patches, integrating well into cvs-current, this
> week, as arranged on irc, and you judge if my code is unbearable or if
> it actually makes sense. i see this as an last attempt to communicate
> with you guys..

I'm listening, and I believe the other developers are too.  Some of us are
unnecessarily abrasive at times (yes Moshe I mean you), and I regret that.
I look forward to seeing your proxy patches and discussing them with you.

Thanks for your efforts so far (even though they have gone unrewarded)!

Regards,

-Andrew.