1 |
On 05/15/2016 03:29 AM, Michał Górny 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 |
> Since the anti-productivity of this thread is getting impressively high |
29 |
> even for Gentoo standards, I'd like to point out a few things. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> It was impolite. It was supposed to be. Not offensive but impolite. It |
32 |
> ain't cool to get responses like this but it ain't cool to break stuff |
33 |
> like this either. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> For those who don't have a broader view, it wasn't a single commit but |
36 |
> a followup to a commit adding EAPI=6 support to the eclass -- clearly |
37 |
> untested. I didn't bother complaining about the first one since issues |
38 |
> would clearly pop up if someone actually tried to use the eclass |
39 |
> in EAPI=6. However, the second commit actually introduced a syntax |
40 |
> error that broke all the ebuilds, including stable and caused metadata |
41 |
> generation failure. This is real bad. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Of course, it could have been worse. It looks like no ebuilds with |
44 |
> EAPI=6 'support' were committed following the eclass. Which is a good |
45 |
> sign that some testing eventually occurred. However, is it that much of |
46 |
> an effort to test eclass changes using ebuilds *before* committing it? |
47 |
> It wasn't that hard even in times of CVS (esp. that we're talking about |
48 |
> separate directories), and it is even easier in times of git. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> I don't really see the benefit of whole of this discussion. He |
51 |
> committed a bad thing, I shouted at him, end of story. If you want to |
52 |
> take it to comrel, just do it. However, discussing whether it was right |
53 |
> or wrong is really unproductive here. |
54 |
> |
55 |
I felt it was a bit strong, but you make a good case. There certainly is |
56 |
a balance. One can't coddle someone who's breaking the tree, especially |
57 |
when we expect people to test before committing. Since it was an eclass, |
58 |
wasn't that supposed to be discussed on here first, too? Still, we're |
59 |
going to make mistakes and dressing someone down won't fix it. |
60 |
|
61 |
When I was adding multilib support to media-sound/apulse I recall you |
62 |
strongly telling me that I screwed up and it shouldn't have been done |
63 |
the way I originally committed. There wasn't a nudge in the right |
64 |
direction, though. I imagine it was clear that I hadn't done multilib |
65 |
scripts before. If I had been more sensitive or less willing to fix it, |
66 |
what would have happened? You or someone else may have reverted it |
67 |
and/or reported to QA and started a ruckus. |
68 |
|
69 |
I mean, I don't hold a grudge or anything. I'm glad you told me it |
70 |
wasn't right, because if I'm contributing to Gentoo I want it to be done |
71 |
well. I learned something from it. But a dev being told that they're |
72 |
screwing up without also being specific (or at least a hint) about a way |
73 |
to fix it or *why* it's wrong doesn't help them fix their screw up and |
74 |
ensure it doesn't happen again. |
75 |
|
76 |
That sort of criticism, which may be warranted in terms of "they screwed |
77 |
the tree up due to something stupid!", isn't productive if the dev |
78 |
doesn't know how to fix it. |
79 |
|
80 |
This particular screw-up is different since it was simpler, but less |
81 |
trivial screw ups do happen and without _constructive_ criticism, devs |
82 |
(and Gentoo, by extension) won't get better. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
86 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
87 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |