1 |
Just a general point: I think people are being a bit harsh on Stuart in this |
2 |
thread. I'm picking up on Chris's post as I'm interested in the |
3 |
releng-related stuff, but this isn't exclusively about his responses. |
4 |
|
5 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
6 |
> On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>> I'm sorry, but how the hell do you know? You are not a member of |
8 |
>> Release Engineering, and have *NO CLUE* what we do over there. What we |
9 |
>> release isn't the only thing we do. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Then this is a great opportunity to set the record straight, by |
12 |
> explaining what server-oriented work releng do with each release. |
13 |
> |
14 |
I agree with Stuart on this. While released stuff is of course not all any |
15 |
team does in software development, it is all that anyone external usually |
16 |
sees, or associates with that group. |
17 |
|
18 |
>> Luckily, I'm not asking you. Instead, I'm asking interested developers |
19 |
>> to assist us in making what we plan on doing much more viable. Feel |
20 |
>> free to sit over there and naysay until you're blue in the face. We'll |
21 |
>> be over here getting something accomplished via teamwork. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Odd; I'm trying to get involved, by providing feedback and asking |
24 |
> questions. |
25 |
> |
26 |
Again I think Stuart is right; he's asking questions which while they might |
27 |
sound irritating if you've explained the stuff before, should be treated |
28 |
with respect, or at least basic courtesy. |
29 |
|
30 |
>> Just because we didn't take the time out to stop and make |
31 |
>> sure you were personally comfortable with the change doesn't mean we |
32 |
>> didn't prepare for it and announce it. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I'm sorry that you've gone with the "I always know best, you're a |
35 |
> fucking chump so shut the fuck up" type of response :( That seems to |
36 |
> be your answer of choice to all feedback these days. |
37 |
> |
38 |
It's obviously something to do with you personally Stuart, and no I'm not |
39 |
trying to insult you by that. I think you'd have been better quoting this |
40 |
bit: |
41 |
>> If you're "testing the crap" out of something, but only in an |
42 |
>> exclusively desktop-oriented way ... well, that can only really be |
43 |
>> partial testing, can't it? |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'd really |
46 |
> appreciate it if you just shut the hell up until you decide to get |
47 |
> yourself informed on the facts. |
48 |
> |
49 |
AFAIC that response is unacceptable, and should have been called, rather |
50 |
than Stuart's understandable upset at being dealt with in such a manner. |
51 |
|
52 |
> I'm sorry you feel that my input isn't welcome in your world. |
53 |
And that is exactly why we don't need such responses; it just switches |
54 |
people off, who are genuinely (and politely) trying to contribute. |
55 |
|
56 |
Wrt others not understanding, it's much simpler to write a one-liner |
57 |
explaining where they're going wrong, rather than slagging them off, which |
58 |
only has negative consequences. |
59 |
|
60 |
Disclaimer: I don't know all the background in terms of prior discussion |
61 |
which may have led people to deal with Stuart so nastily. TBH I don't think |
62 |
it really matters; from the outside it looks like bashing someone who seems |
63 |
to be asking reasonable questions and making valid points, at least within |
64 |
the context of the discussion. There have been comparisons with ciaranm, |
65 |
but again, I've seen tirades against him when he had seemed (to me) to be |
66 |
asking reasonable questions. |
67 |
|
68 |
In summary, I'd just like to say that if you think someone's missing a basic |
69 |
point, can you please either put him/her straight or just ignore them. The |
70 |
bad manners can only put others off. |
71 |
|
72 |
A wider point is that the record may be set straight, as Stuart puts it, by |
73 |
responding with info rather than an insult, but that's only for that *one* |
74 |
discussion. I guess I'm wondering whether documentation people read this |
75 |
stuff, and if so, couldn't any points that get made be fed back into docs? |
76 |
So in this case, as an example, if more info came from releng with regard |
77 |
to what they do in terms of server stuff that _wasn't_ already in the docs, |
78 |
the docs would be updated. And of course, if it /were/ in the docs, a |
79 |
simple link could take the place of an insult. |
80 |
|
81 |
-- |
82 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |