| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2) Recruitment. |
| 3 |
> "Here, sonny, let me show you our list of EAPI versions. Make sure you |
| 4 |
> memorize these by heart and dont confuse them. We try to improve them every |
| 5 |
> now and then, but since people insist on using the old ones anyway, well, we |
| 6 |
> have to keep them around. Have fun." |
| 7 |
> That problem, of course, could also be solved (and will eventually be solved |
| 8 |
> that way if needed) by telling new recruits "Unless you want to contribute to |
| 9 |
> obscure stuff like toolchain, you don't have to care about the deprecated |
| 10 |
> EAPIs. 4 and up is fine." Bus factor anyone? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
We don't teach existing developers the new EAPIs, so why would we |
| 13 |
teach new developers the old EAPIs? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That's what documentation is for - the purpose of recruiting isn't to |
| 16 |
teach documentation regurgitation. The main purpose of recruiting is |
| 17 |
to screen out people who lack maturity/care/etc. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
A developer with commit access that doesn't understand EAPI2 doesn't |
| 20 |
concern me much. A developer with commit access that understands all |
| 21 |
the EAPIs perfectly and loves to do tree-wide scripted commits without |
| 22 |
notice or formal testing every other Tuesday concerns me a great deal, |
| 23 |
even if they haven't broken anything yet. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The problem isn't ignorance, but innocence. We're all ignorant at |
| 26 |
some level, but some at least understand this and act accordingly. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives