Sean Coates wrote: >>> what? who said that? you produce some very good code; And, like me >>> and >>> everyone else, you produce some short-sighted code. There is nothing >>> wrong with that. And as you mentioned earlier, people get very little >>> to no feedback on the patches they've submitted. That should change. >> Owen. > > Is this documented somewhere? I'd like to read it. >
I told him that last night in IRC, in response to this thread. Suffice to say, I often review code, find nothing good to say about it, and decline comment at all. "If you can't say something nice..." Last night, in the face of basically being slapped with accusations of subverting the whole project, I heatedly explained why I haven't commented on any of his patches. In my opinion his code is frequently not the quality or consistency of that which I would personally commit. Nobody is forced to commit code they don't want to. If one person doesn't commit your code, ask another committer to review and commit your patches for you. I also have not reverted any commit that any other PMC member has deemed worthy of commit, because I know my standards are very high, and I trust the other committers to see past my alleged need for perfection in code to produce a more useful Habari. I have personally committed at least 5 of Arthus' patches, with thanks, so I'm not sure how I'm being accused of a conspiracy to prevent people from contributing. If I think that a method for coding a feature isn't the best way, I say so. That other people agree or not is their own prerogative, but ultimately anything is open for discussion. I would hope that my history and familiarity with the project's code and ideas for its future do lend weight to people's opinion of my viewpoints, but I expect that they still decide for themselves. In particular, I know that the SuperGlobal issue is the focus of such a debate. I have not heard an argument that convinces me personally that the SuperGlobal class should be replaced. There has been no discussion on the topic that resulted in a consensus that the implementation should be changed. If there was such a discussion, I would likely continue to argue against it, but ultimately go along with whatever the group decides. I think there's some impression people have that "what Owen says is law" that I simply don't share. I suspect that my advocating a position is influential, but I don't see that as my fault. If an argument is not persuasive enough to win the body politic over to your cause from some allegiance to me that I didn't even ask for, then it's your argument that isn't strong enough. I see that an edited log from last night's IRC has shown up in the list, as I expected. When reading the log, please note that there is a lot of in-between discussion omitted from that transcript. I suspect that a fuller log may surface with the noted parts intact, but if this abbreviated log is all we get, it's sufficient for me. I think it's expected that this log be damning of me, but it essentially confirms what I've said above and belies the frustration I've felt as a result of being dragged through this attack. I've tried to remain out of this conversation and let others draw their conclusions as they will, and I will return to doing so now. I believe that no one has offered any positive suggestions as to what to do with this body of accusations, true or false, so I don't know how the community is expected to proceed, what I'm supposed to change about my own behavior, or even if any of that is the expected outcome of this thread. What can we do to move on from this otherwise unproductive and inflammatory thread? Owen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
