[LinuxBIOS] "Trivial" patches

[Stefan Reinauer]

Torsten Duwe schrieb:
> On Saturday 24 November 2007, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> * Patches which are IMO obviously correct. They can involve pretty large
>> code changes or rewriting fragile (and long-time unchanged) code
>> everybody uses. Obviously correct patches are trivial.
>>     
>
> That is a courageous assumption. Code that looks correct is trivial? I miss 
> the third class of patches like comment reformatting, re-indent, naming 
> constant values and the like, changes every one of us would consider trivial.
>
>   
It also shows Carl-Daniel is trying to make a point by being sarcastic 
or polemic. Not sure what this is going to be good for. Certainly not 
the project.

>> I have no problem committing a rewrite of the CAR setup assembly code.
>> It is obviously correct for me even without having ever looked at any of
>> the relevant data sheets or having tested it on real hardware.
>> Do you really want me to commit that? The patch is ready.
>>     
>
> If that code does work in all cases I might consider you a genius, depending 
> on the new code. If it breaks under some circumstances and you don't care, 
> then this would indeed be the first step to have your commit rights removed, 
> IMHO. If you're not feeling lucky, ask for a second opinion. It's that 
> simple.
>   

There was a time when a committer would break 50 boards in one night and 
then vanish and NEVER come back to fix it again.

Back then we agreed on rules to avoid such stupidity.
Then we started getting more and more strict with our rules.
So much that we started annoying every external contributor with those 
rules.

I assume there is some common sense in between those two extremes. 
Something all of us can live with, without becoming a nitpicker 
paralyzing the project's progress, nor having code quality drop 
significantly.

Stefan