From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD96C21498 for ; Sat, 11 May 2024 06:33:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]) by 9front; Sat May 11 00:31:37 -0400 2024 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F192033E for <9front@9front.org>; Sat, 11 May 2024 00:31:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=xthNUaFhgnEiY+BXoIHIktj7d Us/aGLfZltM+7sEevc=; b=F2CIgszO0Fuxsmz+xwbqq5ZlWk7MwXoBKm4ufUGgS +UljKK/7lGcja9kyPjPNAxgMPklW3uJ+heP/rbbuaH1PrsZULY6fWF0hysM9SMfe GKzE9/15E2syr97MsKa2veoflD0iGwu7150hFZnFSfsjsk3TOEEuxXu54+79Xme5 pE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36462033D for <9front@9front.org>; Sat, 11 May 2024 00:31:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) Received: from strider.localdomain (unknown [47.37.156.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A0BA2033C for <9front@9front.org>; Sat, 11 May 2024 00:31:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from unobe@cpan.org) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 21:31:22 -0700 From: Romano To: 9front@9front.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5395B346-0F4F-11EF-A43B-F515D2CDFF5E-09620299!pb-smtp20.pobox.com List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: ISO-certified progressive blockchain content-driven strategy-oriented locator Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] rio: resize border and scrollbar based on font Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk I looked back over my replies and I couldn't see where I was pushing for inclusion. I thanked you for your feedback to begin with. I wasn't rejecting your review but I wanted to understand some of your feedback better. I understood what you were saying in regards to it not being accepted. But based on your last response I think you didn't understand what I was saying, or rather the context in which I was saying what I was saying. Perhaps when I wrote, "But I think this is a start, and makes things more bearable at least for me." you took that as me pushing for inclusion? Or in my last reply re: not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? In my responses, I was explaining how it was useful for me, and of course that's anecdotal: patches often are. I thought my question before my "more bearable " comment re: just the scrollbars and my followup questions after (all in the same email) would make it clear I wasn't pushing for inclusion. But that didn't mean that I thought the discussion was over regarding different paths forward. Your last response made it clear to me that you (and perhaps others) thought I was pushing for inclusion. Sorry about that. My last email response was with the understanding that I knew it was rejected and I wasn't trying to force its inclusion. I did have comments regarding what was considered hacky and how I've seen commits accepted that do (knowingly) break assumptions/previous interfaces. Things that I've seen done around here. Anyway, in an attempt not to be misunderstood in the future I will try the following boilerplate response: " Thank you for reviewing. I understand by your response that the patch is rejected by you. However, I have some related follow-up questions and comments. I don't expect any reply, especially if you consider my follow-ups have already been addressed. I also don't want to make you think I am pushing for the patch as written to be included: I am not. So having said that, ... [my follow-ups] ..." In the past I have followed up on patches I sent to the mailing list but which were never commented on. I was told earlier (I think in January, IIRC) that if no comment had bern given after a week it's okay to follow-up. And I often have seen messages here like "patches welcome" and also lambasting those who ask about something to be changed given a response akin to "talk is cheap, show me the code." So up until now I have figured showing at least some effort with a patch (which might very well be rejected) is better than just asking about scaling and sizing. Again, thank you for all you have helped me with on this list and on gridchat.