On Mar 19, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > things marked with (general) are meant to apply to anyone at all, > anytime, working on anything. Not just those in ofbiz, not just > Jacopo or me. > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>>> Where is all this hostility coming from? I sent a simple message, >>>> saying it should be split(not must). >> >> And you were wrong. > > Ok, fine, no problem with that. But I still haven't seen a reason why > it doesn't make sense to split it. Based on your own commit message, > you have two separate changes. I didn't even have to look closely at > what you were doing. My original email was mostly based on the > message you typed in.
Yes, I know that you just looked at the comment without looking at the code: if you had looked at the code you would have realized what I did. > >>>> You responded that it didn't >>>> need to be, so I assumed that you hadn't seen any of my other emails >>>> about this subject in the past(entirely possible, we are all busy, and >>>> may not read everything). So, I happily repeated myself(I have no >>>> problem doing that). >> >> Ok, now I understand your point of view. Yes, I confirm that I also >> appreciate the value of singleton commits and I always try to implement them >> (like I did in this commit). > > Confirmation is nice, thanks. I believe you are the first one to > actually do so. I don't require it, however. > > Generally, when I respond to a commit message, I don't look at who > actually did it(again, repeating this). I look at *just* the single > commit, all by its little lonesome self. And try to see if it can > stand alone, without any other context. This is also because of the > aforementioned procedure of futuring debugging, and the future person > not having the full context when they start trying to figure things out. > > (general) > >>>> You then respond with this hostile email. >> >> Yes, sorry if I have been too harsh; this happened because it took me a lot >> of time and energy to reply to all your emails (and Ean's ones) in the last >> couple of days and I was a bit disappointed (and surprised) when I had to do >> it again after a such simple commit. > > Again, you may have considered it simple, but that is because you know > different things then I do. This, as I've said, is a good thing. If > someone asks a question, the very fact that they asked proves that > they don't know something. If you *do* happen to know the answer, > being combative/hostile/annoyed/whatever with them asking the question > is a waste of time. Actually I was hostile because you didn't ask a question; your was a statement: "This should have been 2 commits, they aren't related." > > (general) > >>>> I see what I think are 2 separate changes in a single commit. That >>>> part was obvious from the initial email I sent. If they weren't meant >>>> to be split, then explain why. >> >> In fact I did it; and it took time; and you could have realized it on your >> own if you had spent more time reading my code. > > I don't know what you know. We all have different overlapping > knowledge bases. If I knew everything you knew, I would be you. > > Yes, is is theoretically possible for any one of us to understand what > any one else is doing. Unfortunately, in the real world, we all have > limits, so we only know certain things. They may overlap slightly, > but there will always be differences in our knowledge. > > As the author of the change, you are the best person in the world to > answer any questions that someone may have about it. If someone else > says nothing, then they probably have no clue at all about it. > However, if someone does respond, that means they have a partial > understanding, and just need to be slightly guided to the final > conclusion. > You know that I am always here to help as much as I can. > (general) > >>>> Again, it's obvious I didn't see why >>>> they could be kept together. It was evident that I didn't see it, >>>> otherwise, I wouldn't have sent that first email. >> >> Of course, I understand you didn't realize. >> >>>> I've never said that this was a golden rule. >> >> Actually I think it is a golden rule (it was not ironic) :-) >> But of course I am flexible and if I would see you, or Adam or Scott or >> David breaking it in one of their commits from time to time I would not even >> think to mention this; I would imply you have good reasons for doing this. >> Of course if I see committer X breaking this rule in each and every commit I >> would instead take care of raising an objection. > > Ignoring a problem is the wrong approach. I don't see this as a problem, just a minor defect. In fact this will cause (in the worst case scenario) a few more minutes to the hypothetical man of the future to debug the code. By the way, I think we can close the discussion now, right? I wish you a great weekend Jacopo > Those who come up with > policies/procedures/guidelines/nice-to-have may forget about them at > times, and not do it correctly. This doesn't mean you shouldn't tell > them about it. Go ahead and do so. They may have just made a simple, > honest mistake. > > (general) >
