potiuk commented on issue #339: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/339#issuecomment-3568110685
> As I wrote: the rationale for not following the usual convention needs to be documented. I think it very much depends on "usual" and "needs". Yes It **might** be documented IMHO, but definition of "usual" when it comes to convention very much depends on context - the fact that one person thinks it's usual, does not make it "usual" if you ask me. And it does not **need** to be documented always, but of course it's good when it does so asking nicely "should this be documented maybe ?" is probably better way of raising concerns. Even in ruff that rule (G0001) is not enabled by default because it's not seen as "universally followed". Actually if you look further and want to optimize things as logging library authors (core devs) suggested, you should use `isEnabledFor` - https://docs.python.org/3/howto/logging.html#optimization . And there is the whole discussion in stdlib on adapting the style of your formatting to your application https://docs.python.org/3/howto/logging-cookbook.html#formatting-styles - so I am not sure if there is a "one universal recipe" for logging, and apparently the tooling team made and documented their choice - but whether it "needs to be explained because in this case one person has a different preference that they think is standard" is likely not something I would "demand". I would never write "should" in the code base that I never touched. That seems a bit pushy and demanding, expressing patronising approach in general. Maybe a better way (again) is to start with asking question and seeing what original author thinks, and raising your concerns rather than believe that "Everyone around me have the same judgment as I do". We all have biases, some of us have more need for having things "perfect" and even exhibit sometimes kind of obsessive desire to fix things, and it's fine as long as they are the ones who care about this, rather than trying to make others think like them. That's all I wanted to say. It's not too collaborative approach when first interaction you have with something is to tell them what THEY should do because YOU know it's the only right way. Or at least that's the trait I see in some of the comments you have - lack of inquisiiiveness and curiosity, but simplly "knowing" that your way is the only way. I am not questioning your issue @sebbASF - in case you did not notice I quite support the merit, but I question the way it has been raised. Could be more ... I don't know ... human way? rather than robotic? Or more collaborative rather than demanding and patronising ? I'd suggest you to work on this communication approach, I saw it works miracles in terms of achieving your goals. Pushy and demanding approach often raises unnecessary bad emotions and feelings. Treat is as food for thoughts, maybe. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
