| 1 |
On 12/22/2015 01:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Or just point people at a random email, because that's about as good as |
| 3 |
>> documentation. |
| 4 |
> Thank you for writing up a guide/outline. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You appear to hate mediawiki, but you do realize that you could |
| 7 |
> probably copy/paste that email into the box and call it half-done, |
| 8 |
> right? Somebody else can always come along and improve it, and that |
| 9 |
> is kind of the whole point of a wiki, and of FOSS in general. |
| 10 |
I've worked with Semantic Mediawiki long enough to understand that it is |
| 11 |
a pile of buggy hacks, on top of a horribly bad codebase, on top of a |
| 12 |
horribly broken language. Upstream developers don't understand concepts |
| 13 |
like data truncation, and debugging this pile of code is going to make |
| 14 |
you cry. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
(Just as an example: I found a 'pathological' pageview that cost ~40000 |
| 17 |
SQL connections (yes!) and 90 CPU-seconds render time, server side, on a |
| 18 |
4Ghz machine. Moving the database from dedicated hardware to the MW |
| 19 |
server sped up page render time because the network latency of ethernet |
| 20 |
becomes painful ...) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
From the beginning I've suggested to use something sane, but people Know |
| 23 |
what needs to be done, so there's no way to avoid such badness to |
| 24 |
spread. And thus I just refuse to interact with it now, because I know |
| 25 |
enough details about SMW templates to not want to stare at that buggy |
| 26 |
ad-hoc mess of random again. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> Please, stop wasting people's time, if you write code or documentation |
| 30 |
>> write it once properly, don't release untested things and claim they are |
| 31 |
>> an official tool, and don't ignore complaints (because they mean, as a |
| 32 |
>> first approximation, that you screwed up and need to fix stuff) |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
> Gentoo devs and volunteers are more than welcome to ignore complaints. |
| 35 |
> I'll take half-implemented code over no code any day of the week. |
| 36 |
Broken code is worse than no code: Now you spend lots of time on |
| 37 |
debugging, instead of doing something more useful. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I'd replace gkeys-gen with a ~10-line shell script ... if I had some |
| 40 |
motivation to dig through some old experiments of mine where I managed |
| 41 |
to set all parameters for pgp from CLI. Which is all that gkeys-gen |
| 42 |
would do! |
| 43 |
> Maybe somebody isn't good at writing documentation, and we benefit |
| 44 |
> from getting their contributions all the same which somebody can later |
| 45 |
> follow-up on (perhaps somebody who is better at writing documentation |
| 46 |
> than code). You're going to make more progress with evolutionary |
| 47 |
> steps. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> BTW, bugs aren't complaints, and I don't really consider "complaints" |
| 50 |
> nearly as useful. If you want to point out an error by all means do |
| 51 |
> so. You can do it without implying that somebody somehow owed you |
| 52 |
> something better. They don't. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
I guess we fundamentally disagree - if you do shoddy work, it is shoddy. |
| 55 |
I won't praise you for it. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Look, *I* spent about a working day all in all on just figuring out why |
| 58 |
things don't work. Multiply by number of contributors, and it starts |
| 59 |
looking really sad. Time and motivation are not free resources! |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
That's my time, spent to work around deficiencies I shouldn't even see - |
| 62 |
if other people had done their job. And that's just frustrating if it |
| 63 |
happens again and again, and instead of doing something interesting I |
| 64 |
spend most of my time just being janitor and cleaning up stuff. |
Archives