On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 5:15:45 PM UTC-4 mys...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 13:34 Thomas Passin wrote:
In the announcement about the proposed PR 3215 that massively affects UNLs,
@Edward wrote
"I won't wait for a code review. The code involved is too tricky to
understand in
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:34 PM Thomas Passin wrote:
If we had a proposed set of requirements for a change to fix a well-defined
> problem, we probably wouldn't be in the fix we're in right now about this
> PR.
>
We aren't in a fix. We just need to find the least disruptive way of
transitioning
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:34 PM Thomas Passin wrote:
> In the announcement about the proposed PR 3215 that massively affects
> UNLs, @Edward wrote
>
> "I won't wait for a code review. The code involved is too tricky to
> understand in an hour or five."
>
I'll retract this statement. There have
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 13:34 Thomas Passin wrote:
> In the announcement about the proposed PR 3215 that massively affects
> UNLs, @Edward wrote
>
> "I won't wait for a code review. The code involved is too tricky to
> understand in an hour or five."
>
> This statement contains two red flags.
>
I
I'm not going to go too far down this rabbit hole - I have a day job - but
in general I would agree that 'too tricky to understand' code is a red flag.
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:34:47 PM UTC+1 tbp1...@gmail.com wrote:
> In the announcement about the proposed PR 3215 that massively affects
In the announcement about the proposed PR 3215 that massively affects UNLs,
@Edward wrote
"I won't wait for a code review. The code involved is too tricky to
understand in an hour or five."
This statement contains two red flags. If it's too tricky for a code
review, there's something out of
