Re: [U-Boot-Users] Request to mailing list U-Boot-Users rejected
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:23:21 -0800 u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
"Your message was too big; please trim it to less than 40 KB in size."
Oh for fsck sakes...
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
If you can't cut me 900 bytes of slack, I'm not going to bother anymore. That patch was _seriously_ painful and I'm not going to do it again just to shave off enough to get it below the arbitrary mailing-list limit.
Haavard
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
"Your message was too big; please trim it to less than 40 KB in size."
Oh for fsck sakes...
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
If you can't cut me 900 bytes of slack, I'm not going to bother anymore. That patch was _seriously_ painful and I'm not going to do it again just to shave off enough to get it below the arbitrary mailing-list limit.
100k limit, please.
Best regards, Stefan
===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de =====================================================================
In message 200712112009.06587.sr@denx.de you wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
...
100k limit, please.
And what happens whith the next posting with a size of 100k + N bytes?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200712112009.06587.sr@denx.de you wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
...
100k limit, please.
And what happens whith the next posting with a size of 100k + N bytes?
with that logic, why allow 40k. take it down to 10k. or 1k.
posting valid patches that exceed 40k is not uncommon. patches exceeding 100k is much less uncommon. -mike
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200712112009.06587.sr@denx.de you wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
...
100k limit, please.
And what happens whith the next posting with a size of 100k + N bytes?
with that logic, why allow 40k. take it down to 10k. or 1k.
posting valid patches that exceed 40k is not uncommon. patches exceeding 100k is much less uncommon.
actually, if you're NAK-ing this by yourself, then i dont see why you'ed NAK a valid patch in the first place.
someone posts a log file or configuration file or something that exceeds the limit makes sense. people developing source code when patches are supposed to be sent to the list does not. -mike
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200712112009.06587.sr@denx.de you wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
...
100k limit, please.
And what happens whith the next posting with a size of 100k + N bytes?
with that logic, why allow 40k. take it down to 10k. or 1k.
posting valid patches that exceed 40k is not uncommon. patches exceeding 100k is much less uncommon.
actually, if you're NAK-ing this by yourself, then i dont see why you'ed NAK a valid patch in the first place.
someone posts a log file or configuration file or something that exceeds the limit makes sense. people developing source code when patches are supposed to be sent to the list does not. -mike
I would agree with Mike... have a soft limit of 40K where bounced messages go to Wolfgang and he authorizes "reasonable" patches. Alternatively, set the limit higher (100K) and cut it back if it gets abused. I suspect it won't.
I don't know how many "oversize" (>40K) messages Wolfgang sees. Judging from the small number of complaints about oversize bounces on the list, it doesn't seem to be many.
Discarding oversize patches on a hard numerical criteria rather than on a softer validity criteria is easy for decision making but hard on the developers. Arbitrarily breaking (in *both* senses of the word) patches just to fit them under the 40K limit causes more work and results in *less* benefit.
I like Koha's motto: "Every time a patch falls on the floor, a kitten dies." http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=en:development:git_usage
We should be encouraging patches of a reasonable size and should be flexible on the definition of "reasonable." We are willing to use 3rd party code (e.g. linux driver code) that may not quite meet our coding standards because it is useful and expedient to not have to rewrite perfectly good code. If we have reasonable flexibility on coding standards, why not on patch sizes???
My 2 cents, gvb
P.S. courtesy of Ogden Nash :-)
THE KITTEN ---------- The trouble with a kitten is THAT Eventually it becomes a CAT.
In message 200712111741.57017.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
And what happens whith the next posting with a size of 100k + N bytes?
with that logic, why allow 40k. take it down to 10k. or 1k.
40 kB is the default value.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200712111741.57017.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
And what happens whith the next posting with a size of 100k + N bytes?
with that logic, why allow 40k. take it down to 10k. or 1k.
40 kB is the default value.
Powerful reasoning indeed. It reminds me of when I tell my little boy "because I say so"
regards, Ben
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:23:21 -0800
u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
"Your message was too big; please trim it to less than 40 KB in size."
Oh for fsck sakes...
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
If you can't cut me 900 bytes of slack, I'm not going to bother anymore. That patch was _seriously_ painful and I'm not going to do it again just to shave off enough to get it below the arbitrary mailing-list limit.
it's an automated message ... it isnt like Wolfgang is sitting there a rejecting each one
related, i'd agree that a 40kb limit on a list that expects to be getting [sometimes sizable] patches is wrong -mike
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
If you can't cut me 900 bytes of slack, I'm not going to bother anymore. That patch was _seriously_ painful and I'm not going to do it again just to shave off enough to get it below the arbitrary mailing-list limit.
it's an automated message ... it isnt like Wolfgang is sitting there a rejecting each one
No, but he has sat there rejecting all prior requests to increase the limit...
-Scott
In message 200712111453.00849.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
...
it's an automated message ... it isnt like Wolfgang is sitting there a rejecting each one
Oh, it *is* me. As a list moderator I have to NAK these manually. But the way I see it I can only be fair by NAKing all such requests. Even if the exceed the limit by just a single byte.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:26:11 +0100 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
In message 200712111453.00849.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
Message body is too big: 40979 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
...
it's an automated message ... it isnt like Wolfgang is sitting there a rejecting each one
Oh, it *is* me. As a list moderator I have to NAK these manually. But the way I see it I can only be fair by NAKing all such requests. Even if the exceed the limit by just a single byte.
Then why don't you set it up to NAK such messages unconditionally?
What really pissed me off this time is that it was so obvious that you went in, looked at the message and rejected it explicitly even though it was only slightly above the limit and I specifically said in the introductory e-mail that this particular patch is hard to rebase.
Now, what do you want me to do? Shorten the log message? Remove some comments?
Haavard
In message 20071212102901.524d3850@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com you wrote:
Now, what do you want me to do? Shorten the log message? Remove some comments?
Quoting http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/Patches :
Remember that there is a size limit of 40 kB on the mailing list. In most cases, you did something wrong if your patch exceeds this limit. Think again if you should not split it into separate logical parts. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds this limit, and you are absolutely sure that you should not split it, then provide a URL (link) pointing to your patch instead.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi Wolfgang,
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Now, what do you want me to do? Shorten the log message? Remove some comments?
Quoting http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/Patches :
Remember that there is a size limit of 40 kB on the mailing list. In most cases, you did something wrong if your patch exceeds this limit. Think again if you should not split it into separate logical parts. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds this limit, and you are absolutely sure that you should not split it, then provide a URL (link) pointing to your patch instead.
Don't you think after the feedback we got in this thread (all developers voting for 100k limit instead of 40k), that it would be good to change the limit?
Please reconsider. Thanks.
Best regards, Stefan
===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de =====================================================================
On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Now, what do you want me to do? Shorten the log message? Remove some comments?
Quoting http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/Patches :
Remember that there is a size limit of 40 kB on the mailing list. In most cases, you did something wrong if your patch exceeds this limit. Think again if you should not split it into separate logical parts. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds this limit, and you are absolutely sure that you should not split it, then provide a URL (link) pointing to your patch instead.
Don't you think after the feedback we got in this thread (all developers voting for 100k limit instead of 40k), that it would be good to change the limit?
Please reconsider. Thanks.
Best regards, Stefan
Just to add my two cents, I believe the linuxppc-dev lists is set to 100k and we don't seem to have much issue w/it at that limit.
- k
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Now, what do you want me to do? Shorten the log message? Remove some comments?
Quoting http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/Patches :
Remember that there is a size limit of 40 kB on the mailing list. In most cases, you did something wrong if your patch exceeds this limit. Think again if you should not split it into separate logical parts. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds this limit, and you are absolutely sure that you should not split it, then provide a URL (link) pointing to your patch instead.
Don't you think after the feedback we got in this thread (all developers voting for 100k limit instead of 40k), that it would be good to change the limit?
Please reconsider. Thanks.
Best regards, Stefan
Just to add my two cents, I believe the linuxppc-dev lists is set to 100k and we don't seem to have much issue w/it at that limit.
- k
I also vote for 100K. That should be enough for everyone (c) B.Gates :)
--- ****************************************************************** * KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ******************************************************************
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:27:28AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
Just to add my two cents, I believe the linuxppc-dev lists is set to 100k and we don't seem to have much issue w/it at that limit.
The 40k limit comes from an age where we all have been connected to the rest of the world with 64k lines; although I'm deeply against encouraging people to send around multi megabyte office documents, 100k sounds like a pretty good compromise for lists containing patches.
rsc
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Oh, it *is* me. As a list moderator I have to NAK these manually. But the way I see it I can only be fair by NAKing all such requests. Even if the exceed the limit by just a single byte.
This policy isn't helping anyone, however. It's making more work for you, because you spend more time NAK'ing patches. It's more work for the people who contribute patches, because they need to find other ways to submit the patches.
No one is saying that the limit should be removed. We're just saying that 40K is too low. As far as I'm concerned, it has *always* been too low. 100K is reasonable.
participants (11)
-
Ben Warren -
Haavard Skinnemoen -
Jerry Van Baren -
ksi＠koi8.net -
Kumar Gala -
Mike Frysinger -
Robert Schwebel -
Scott Wood -
Stefan Roese -
Timur Tabi -
Wolfgang Denk