| 1 |
On 05/15/2016 02:53 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 |
| 3 |
> Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200 |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
>>>>>> Do you seriously expect this code to work? How about testing? Or |
| 12 |
>>>>>> reading diffs before committing? |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Absolutely nothing wrong was said here. Obviously the code was not tested |
| 15 |
>>>> and Michal pointed that out very plainly. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> It is actually possible to communicate both plainly and politely at |
| 18 |
>>> the same time. This does not require sacrificing any commitment to |
| 19 |
>>> quality at all. Really the only downside is having more of an |
| 20 |
>>> appearance of professionalism. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong language of |
| 23 |
>> "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual did not perform the |
| 24 |
>> necessary QA actions before committing? Both of which are completely called |
| 25 |
>> for and appropriate. No vulgarity, insults, or demeaning words were used. |
| 26 |
>> How would you have responded professionally? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I thought his response was pretty tame actually. If you break the tree |
| 29 |
> because you couldn't be bothered to do the barest minimum of testing you |
| 30 |
> absolutely deserve to be called out on it. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> But if you guys just want to hug it out that's cool too. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
I think that depends on history. If the dev in question hasn't done that |
| 35 |
before, then it's entirely possible they *thought* they tested, or |
| 36 |
tested it *before* making some other edit and absent-mindedly committed. |
| 37 |
That's a screw-up, and devs should be notified. Ideally, they should be |
| 38 |
told *what* they screwed up and *how* to ensure it doesn't happen again. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Admonishing them as if they were a child is not going to engender |
| 41 |
motivation to continue participation. We're all devs because we want to |
| 42 |
make Gentoo better (I hope, anyway), and part of that means we'll have |
| 43 |
to help each other out sometimes. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
There's more to it than coddling vs tearing someone down. |
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 48 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 49 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives