| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:19 +0000, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,) |
| 6 |
> > please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when |
| 7 |
> > you show a QA violation. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This is a technical discussion list, and as such it is fair to assume |
| 10 |
> that anyone getting involved in a discussion on a particularly topic |
| 11 |
> knows enough about said topic to understand what is going on. If you |
| 12 |
> can't see what's wrong with the snippet he gave, then you shouldn't be |
| 13 |
> in the discussion, and, frankly, probably shouldn't have commit rights |
| 14 |
> to the tree either. |
| 15 |
Yeah, like it took me about two minutes of staring at the snippet to see |
| 16 |
why it's evil when reading a short explanation would have made me see |
| 17 |
that in 15 seconds. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
After all not everyone reading this list is a code ninja, please just |
| 20 |
stop this email pingpong and (like we do it with bugs) explain what is |
| 21 |
the issue instead of letting people guess. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That might even teach those that are not yet super-gurus and is in |
| 24 |
general a nice thing to do. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives