On 30-01-2023 20:56, Aleix Conchillo Flaqué wrote:
[...] Maxime found the time to review a quite big PR and added a bunch of useful comments. Reviewing that PR took a lot of effort and I just felt better after fixing all the comments made. I was even surprised he (I'm assuming this pronoun) did.
Unfortunately you are assuming incorrectly; s/he/she/. (*)For future reference, 'they' is usually a safe ‘default’ (except when they hate that, eergh). At least, for some values of 'usual' that might not be representative.
[...] And my feeling is she just wants things to be as correct as possible, which is quite important, especially in a programming language.
That's it, yes.
Exchanging messages in a written form has its own challenges (your mood on that day, maybe you phrase things in a way that can be misunderstood, ...). So I will stop writing and just leave you all with a smiley face. :-)Best,
Something I would like to add here, is that these kind of emotional challenges often appear self-inflicted to me. I mean, the mailing list is a rather technical medium for technical talk about technical things. There is no emotional stuff there unless you add it or you assume it.
Instead of analysing technical messages on the ML for whether there's some emotional hidden message behind it, can't we just assume that any technical messages are just technical, meaning literally what's written in them?
I'm not saying that the emotional stuff should be completely forbidden, but like, with a little care you can separate the technical from the emotional, e.g.:
‘[Oh, I wanted that feature for a long time!]
This won't work at all because it assumes frobs are never barzed,
yet they are when [...]. I'm thinking you'll need a completely
different approach, though I don't have a clue what this approach
would be.
[Keep up the good work!]’
(The [...] lines are nice, but optional. Also the brackets are
optional.). Like, the second paragraph just says it won't work at all
because $reasons. While very unfortunate, there is no malice anywhere;
it's just technical stuff. Likewise, the first [...] and last [...],
while emotionally positive, are irrelevant for the evaluation of the
technical middle part.
Aleix
(*) There are people who apologise after making such mistaken assumptions, which I suppose is a quite reasonable course of action to take in general, but please don't in this case? It just seems embarrassing to me.
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
