Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 24/10/2016 à 01:00, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:52:55PM +0200, Guillaume Munch wrote:


The code does look fragile to me. I do not think that asking that
developers care about maintainability is being overzealous. Then, maybe
I am mistaken about the code and you got to something found maintainable
enough after thinking about it a lot, such that you did not feel the
need asking for advice. In that case, maybe all the misunderstandings
comes indeed from a different appreciation of what effort is asked.

But to know this we would need to speak about the code. Every time I
want to discuss your commits, I know that you are going to take things
personally, to the point that sometimes I just prefer to let it off
before even asking. I do not know another LyX developer who reacts like
you do.


It's not what you say but how you say it.


Before arguing that I am not the official maintainer, ask yourself who
was the only one who tested several of your big changes and spent a lot
of time writing detailed testcases (lots of them!)? And where would LyX
be if I had not?


I think you have an enormous ego and presumptuous manners.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion. Good bye.



Yeah, I see how this comes across, this is not what I meant, does not
correspond to what I think, and I regret writing this. The discussion
went nowhere I wanted and I regret starting it. I will no longer send
such messages to the list in the future.

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Enrico Forestieri]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:52:55PM +0200, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> 
> The code does look fragile to me. I do not think that asking that
> developers care about maintainability is being overzealous. Then, maybe
> I am mistaken about the code and you got to something found maintainable
> enough after thinking about it a lot, such that you did not feel the
> need asking for advice. In that case, maybe all the misunderstandings
> comes indeed from a different appreciation of what effort is asked.
> 
> But to know this we would need to speak about the code. Every time I
> want to discuss your commits, I know that you are going to take things
> personally, to the point that sometimes I just prefer to let it off
> before even asking. I do not know another LyX developer who reacts like
> you do.

It's not what you say but how you say it.

> Before arguing that I am not the official maintainer, ask yourself who
> was the only one who tested several of your big changes and spent a lot
> of time writing detailed testcases (lots of them!)? And where would LyX
> be if I had not?

I think you have an enormous ego and presumptuous manners.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion. Good bye.

-- 
Enrico

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2016 à 22:53, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:02:31PM +0200, Guillaume Munch wrote:


Le 23/10/2016 à 18:38, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :

commit dea5ba16de1b98d93cf30ab65119bc2364a7ac2b
Author: Enrico Forestieri 
Date:   Sun Oct 23 18:23:41 2016 +0200

Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

LyX assumes that everything in \lyxdeleted is struck out by ulem
and increases the corresponding counter. However, deleted display
math material is struck out using tikz. As we also take into
account the deletion of underlined display math (in order to
properly position such material vertically), we have to take
care that the count is correct.



This code (this commit and previous related commits) looks fragile to
me. Did you not prefer to present a (full and tested) patch on the list
and ask other people about it before committing?


Sorry, but I think that your comments are unwarranted and overzealous.
Moreover, this is something that you should pretend from a novice.
I think I know when something should be submitted for review before
committing. And you are not the official maintainer. Please, try
to be less off-putting. Thank you.



The code does look fragile to me. I do not think that asking that
developers care about maintainability is being overzealous. Then, maybe
I am mistaken about the code and you got to something found maintainable
enough after thinking about it a lot, such that you did not feel the
need asking for advice. In that case, maybe all the misunderstandings
comes indeed from a different appreciation of what effort is asked.

But to know this we would need to speak about the code. Every time I
want to discuss your commits, I know that you are going to take things
personally, to the point that sometimes I just prefer to let it off
before even asking. I do not know another LyX developer who reacts like
you do.

Before arguing that I am not the official maintainer, ask yourself who
was the only one who tested several of your big changes and spent a lot
of time writing detailed testcases (lots of them!)? And where would LyX
be if I had not?

I wish we could speak about the code instead.


Guillaume

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Enrico Forestieri]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:02:31PM +0200, Guillaume Munch wrote:

> Le 23/10/2016 à 18:38, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > commit dea5ba16de1b98d93cf30ab65119bc2364a7ac2b
> > Author: Enrico Forestieri 
> > Date:   Sun Oct 23 18:23:41 2016 +0200
> > 
> > Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking
> > 
> > LyX assumes that everything in \lyxdeleted is struck out by ulem
> > and increases the corresponding counter. However, deleted display
> > math material is struck out using tikz. As we also take into
> > account the deletion of underlined display math (in order to
> > properly position such material vertically), we have to take
> > care that the count is correct.
> 
> 
> This code (this commit and previous related commits) looks fragile to
> me. Did you not prefer to present a (full and tested) patch on the list
> and ask other people about it before committing?

Sorry, but I think that your comments are unwarranted and overzealous.
Moreover, this is something that you should pretend from a novice.
I think I know when something should be submitted for review before
committing. And you are not the official maintainer. Please, try
to be less off-putting. Thank you.

-- 
Enrico

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Enrico Forestieri]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 09:09:22PM +0200, Guillaume Munch wrote:

> Le 23/10/2016 à 19:55, Richard Heck a écrit :
> > On 10/23/2016 01:02 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> > > Le 23/10/2016 à 18:38, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > > > commit dea5ba16de1b98d93cf30ab65119bc2364a7ac2b
> > > > Author: Enrico Forestieri 
> > > > Date:   Sun Oct 23 18:23:41 2016 +0200
> > > > 
> > > > Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking
> > > > 
> > > > LyX assumes that everything in \lyxdeleted is struck out by ulem
> > > > and increases the corresponding counter. However, deleted display
> > > > math material is struck out using tikz. As we also take into
> > > > account the deletion of underlined display math (in order to
> > > > properly position such material vertically), we have to take
> > > > care that the count is correct.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This code (this commit and previous related commits) looks fragile to
> > > me. Did you not prefer to present a (full and tested) patch on the list
> > > and ask other people about it before committing?
> > 
> > Looked pretty straightforward to me. This is a very common use of an
> > OutputParams flag. In any event, I take it that this fixed a bug in some of
> > the previous work Enrico did on this. It's not usually our policy to
> > require
> > discussion of that kind of thing.
> > 
> > Where we do always want discussion is with significant changes of behavior,
> > and especially of UI-related changes that affect the user experience. If
> > I'm
> > remembering correctly, there has been some such discussion around how
> > deleted displayed math is handled.
> > 
> 
> Yes, each of the commits looks straightforward. Some of the flags
> were already there indeed. And yes, the change in behaviour has been
> discussed and is most welcome.
> 
> I meant something else. It seems that "common use of an OutputParams flag"
> results in having the logic of a feature scattered all around in tiny bits
> of code. I am worried that this is not going to be easy to
> maintain.
> 
> When I make small or large changes to the code I always try to give back
> something more modular than what I start with. So I wonder whether this
> logic could be centralized in some way.

Maybe you should try to understand the code in Paragraph::latex.
After I did that, it seemed so straightforward to me to not
require further comments.

-- 
Enrico

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2016 à 19:55, Richard Heck a écrit :

On 10/23/2016 01:02 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote:

Le 23/10/2016 à 18:38, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :

commit dea5ba16de1b98d93cf30ab65119bc2364a7ac2b
Author: Enrico Forestieri 
Date:   Sun Oct 23 18:23:41 2016 +0200

Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

LyX assumes that everything in \lyxdeleted is struck out by ulem
and increases the corresponding counter. However, deleted display
math material is struck out using tikz. As we also take into
account the deletion of underlined display math (in order to
properly position such material vertically), we have to take
care that the count is correct.



This code (this commit and previous related commits) looks fragile to
me. Did you not prefer to present a (full and tested) patch on the list
and ask other people about it before committing?


Looked pretty straightforward to me. This is a very common use of an
OutputParams flag. In any event, I take it that this fixed a bug in some of
the previous work Enrico did on this. It's not usually our policy to
require
discussion of that kind of thing.

Where we do always want discussion is with significant changes of behavior,
and especially of UI-related changes that affect the user experience. If
I'm
remembering correctly, there has been some such discussion around how
deleted displayed math is handled.



Yes, each of the commits looks straightforward. Some of the flags
were already there indeed. And yes, the change in behaviour has been
discussed and is most welcome.

I meant something else. It seems that "common use of an OutputParams 
flag" results in having the logic of a feature scattered all around in 
tiny bits of code. I am worried that this is not going to be easy to

maintain.

When I make small or large changes to the code I always try to give back 
something more modular than what I start with. So I wonder whether this 
logic could be centralized in some way.



Guillaume

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Richard Heck]

On 10/23/2016 01:02 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Le 23/10/2016 à 18:38, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
>> commit dea5ba16de1b98d93cf30ab65119bc2364a7ac2b
>> Author: Enrico Forestieri 
>> Date:   Sun Oct 23 18:23:41 2016 +0200
>>
>> Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking
>>
>> LyX assumes that everything in \lyxdeleted is struck out by ulem
>> and increases the corresponding counter. However, deleted display
>> math material is struck out using tikz. As we also take into
>> account the deletion of underlined display math (in order to
>> properly position such material vertically), we have to take
>> care that the count is correct.
>
>
> This code (this commit and previous related commits) looks fragile to
> me. Did you not prefer to present a (full and tested) patch on the list
> and ask other people about it before committing?

Looked pretty straightforward to me. This is a very common use of an
OutputParams flag. In any event, I take it that this fixed a bug in some of
the previous work Enrico did on this. It's not usually our policy to
require
discussion of that kind of thing.

Where we do always want discussion is with significant changes of behavior,
and especially of UI-related changes that affect the user experience. If
I'm
remembering correctly, there has been some such discussion around how 
deleted displayed math is handled.

Richard

Re: [LyX/master] Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2016 à 18:38, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :

commit dea5ba16de1b98d93cf30ab65119bc2364a7ac2b
Author: Enrico Forestieri 
Date:   Sun Oct 23 18:23:41 2016 +0200

Correctly track ulem commands with change tracking

LyX assumes that everything in \lyxdeleted is struck out by ulem
and increases the corresponding counter. However, deleted display
math material is struck out using tikz. As we also take into
account the deletion of underlined display math (in order to
properly position such material vertically), we have to take
care that the count is correct.



This code (this commit and previous related commits) looks fragile to
me. Did you not prefer to present a (full and tested) patch on the list
and ask other people about it before committing?