Quoting Sam Hartman (2020-04-29 18:20:07) > >>>>> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> writes: > > > Jonas> How is "matrix chat protocol" inadequate to tell what package > Jonas> does, which a change to capitalization of initial character > Jonas> fixes? > > I think this is more confrontational than I'd like to see in Debian.
That was certainly not my intention. thanks for pointing out that you perceived it that way, that is helpful to me. > It is very common in many development communities when reviewing a > change to discuss problems introduced by that change in the issue where > that change is being reviewed. > So, in how we commonly use the BTS, I think the following sequence is > fine: > > 1) Hi. I'd like the description to be more clear. > > 2) Here's a proposed description. Is this description more clear. > > 3) Yes, that description is more clear, but you introduced a problem in > the new text. > > That is, problems introduced by the change are reasonable to discuss > *while reviewing the change* > *even if they are not directly related to the gola of the cchange*. I agree that above conversation style is sensible. I did not experience this conversation as being like the above, however, but more like this: 3) Yes, that description is more clear, and let's also replace protocol name with hostname, with uppercased initial letter. And also change this other contro file hint. 4) I disagree that hostname is more clear than protocol. 5) But it is wrong. 6) Not adopting your proposed suggestion is wrong? How is it wrong? 7) The text is wrong. I think you made a mistake. 8) [Ohhh, this is about _reverting_ not about _adding_ change] No, the changes in current draft was deliberat (not accidental). 9) But it really is wrong. 10) I now understand that we are talking about dialing back some changes I did (not adding new changes you propose), but it is still not clear to me *how* it is wrong. I need you to explain _how_ it is wrong, not just insist _that_ it is wrong. 11) You are silly that you insist on discussing this. 12) [WTF?] What are we discussing here? I insist on understanding you instead of dismissing your odd initial suggestion, but it is hard. Give me something to work with, not just repeat your solution to a problem only you see. > If the complaint was about a alleged capitalization error already in > the description, it might be reasonable to ask for another bug. > But if as part of clarifying the description, you introduce a change > that someone believes is a capitalization error, I think that you are > being overly confrontational to push that off elsewhere. Yes, *if* I did such error, then it was overly confrontational of me to push off discussion of it. I was trying to figure out *if* I had made an error. Or rather, later in the conversation I tried to do that. Because the converation (with Andrew) started not with talking about me having made an error, but instead him suggesting an additional (arguably stylistic too fancy) change, and him pointing out another unrelated issue in the packaging. I found the conversation confusing, which made me continue to include the option of "maybe it turns out that he is really talking about womething third which might be sensible in itself but only *inspired* by this bug not tightly related to it, which means I am much better helped at being clued in if _he_ gets to decide the topic of the conversation by filing it as a separate bugreport". > Certainly my frustration is high enough that in the future I am much > less likely to try and suggest small problem or improvements than I > was before this conversation. That is really awful. I was really quite happy that you filed this bugreport (not something I wrote just to be polite). I was also happy that Andrew chimed in and contributed to the conversation. I was *frustrated* that I did not understand Andrew, but wanted to. Wanted to understand, I mean - not drive you both away! > I also happen to believe that Python and Matrix should be capitalized > in that text under our standard style for descriptions. Ok. I would love to discuss that further. With you and with Andrew. I was genuinely quite uncertain if that is the conversation Andrew wanted to have - I tried to figure out which conversation Andrew really wanted to have (other than "here is the fix, just accept it instead of being silly by discussing it"). > I might be wrong about that, but it seems kind of unreasonable to push > that off to a different discussion and to narrowly scope the questions > as you have done. I did _not_ want to push _that_ conversation off. I wanted to push anything _unrelated_ off. I kept asking "how is it relevant" and I meant exactly that. I see how it can be misread as me really between the lines saying "come on, admit that you have nothing sensible to say here - go file another bug that I will ignore for a few years" but that is not what I wrote and not what I intended. Can you please also try see it from my point of view? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
