> > Basically, refusing code due to lack of user documentation is saying
> > having half a loaf is worse than having none. I'm not sure if that's
> > what you were aiming at or not, but it felt a little like it might be.
> 
> The comment wasn't on the patch, but on the lack of documentation.
> Only.

your claim was "each patches being sent for review should
contain documentation updates", wasn't it?

honestly, if it's a requirement, i tend not to send
any patches for review. :-)

YAMAMOTO Takashi