On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 02:37, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please check [1] for the mention of:
>>
>> "The fastest way to get your patch rejected is to make unrelated
>> changes. Reformatting lines that haven't changed, changing unrelated
>> comments you felt were poorly worded, touching code not necessary to
>> your change, etc. Each patch should have the minimum set of changes
>> required to work robustly. If you do not follow the code formatting
>> suggestions above, expect your patch to be returned to you with the
>> feedback of "follow the code conventions", quite likely without any
>> other review."
>
> Forgive my impulsiveness, anyone who loves perfect, well written code, would understand.
Perhaps, but the committers on this project seem to be against the
blunderbuss approach to committing patches. You might meet less
resistance around here if you assume all of their weapons have a scope
and that they like to aim for something before pulling the trigger.
Personally, this seems like a good idea to me and I'd like to follow
it too. If you'd like to hold off you a committer whose weapon of
choice is the blunderbuss then I can back off and let you wait for one
to come along. Just let me know.
> Do you have an objection to fixing the function find_base_rel_ignore_join?
> Or is it included in unrelated changes?
Well, the topic seems to be adding additional safety to prevent
accessing negative entries for simple_rel_array. I can't think why
fixing the same theoretical hazard in find_base_rel_ignore_join()
would be unrelated. I hope you can see the difference here. Randomly
adjusting function signatures because you happen to be changing some
code within that function does not, in my book, seem related. You
seem to agree with this given you mentioned "Of course that has
nothing to do with it."
David