On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:45 AM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess the *valuable* sometimes means the effort we pay is greater > than the benefit we get, As for this patch, the benefit is not huge (it > is possible the compiler already does that). and the most effort we pay > should be committer's attention, who needs to grab the patch, write the > correct commit and credit to the author and push it. I'm not sure if > Aleksander is worrying that this kind of patch will grab too much of > the committer's attention and I do see there are lots of patches like > this.
Very fair point. However, as you said in your follow-up email, Richard Guo has done a lot of good work in this area already, so it makes sense to pay a bit more attention to his suggestions.
Agreed.
> In my opinion, we can do some stuff to improve the ROI. > - Authors should do as much as possible, mainly a better commit > message. As for this patch, the commit message is " Adjustment > to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys" which I don't think matches > our culture.
I agree. I don't think the patch submitter is obliged to try to write a good commit message, but people who contribute regularly or are posting large stacks of complex patches are probably well-advised to try. It makes life easier for committers and even for reviewers trying to make sense of their patches.
Fair enough.
> Actually I also want to know what "Ready for Committer" is designed for, > and when/who can mark a patch as "Ready for Committer" ?
Any reviewer who feels that this is the case. It's not binding on anyone; it's an opinion.
Glad to know that. I have marked myself as a reviewer and mark this entry