Richard, Yes! Thanks. I understand what was fishy about an original commit now.
It's been said countless times, that you shouldn't describe WHAT you do, you should describe WHY you do it. It applies to comments in source code, to commit messages and to pull requests. For example, you shouldn't write a code like this (real case, duh): int x // x is an int You just told a perfectly valid reason to change. Now look at that commit. What does it say? Well, nothing. It's just a silent change without any explanation why somebody would do that. And PR description is empty. I remember a lot of issues like this: https://github.com/joyent/node/pull/6256 If you get your explanation right here and copy paste it into a new pull request changing this, it is a reason enough to pull that. After a bit of discussion about how isaacs would be look like if he was a woman. :) Empty commit description == valid reason to close. Merging previously closed pull request without asking == valid reason to revert. Simple. I don't blame anybody for this, and it's a simple miscommunication. Nothing really bad could've happened over this. But here he is, a Joyent executive who has nothing to do with node, but nevertheless writes a blog post publicly describing an issue in a manner I don't want to remind here. And he still thinks that "it reflects consensus on the engineering team". Sorry, but I think that after THAT node.js should be either moved to a non-profit foundation or forked to a non-profit foundation. Because what harm is being done here by this stupid corporate chain of command instead of voting or a public discussion is quite obvious. Regards, alex On Thursday, December 5, 2013 4:28:21 PM UTC+4, Richard Marr wrote: > > Alex, > > I see what you're saying, and from a close-up perspective you're right, > it's just a word, and extra commits are an overhead. > > That said, the lack of gender inclusivity in tech is an injustice that's > to the detriment of us all... both socially *and* technically. We suffer > *technologically* because we don't have more women here. What if @isaacs > was a woman, and had been put off contributing? Or @bnoordhuis or @felixge? > How many great coders and amazing projects aren't here because we've made > women feel excluded? > > Unless of course you think women don't have a valuable technical > contribution to make, or that there is no barrier for women to enter > communities like this. Both of those would be fair (but wrong) arguments. > > Yes, it's just a couple of words in a comment, but in the same way that a > brick from the Berlin Wall is just a brick. > > Thanks for listening > > Rich > > > On 5 December 2013 11:03, Alex Kocharin <[email protected] > <javascript:>>wrote: > >> >> ravi, >> >> >>> Hello Alex, >>> >>> you use the word “community” and it seems to me that has certain >>> implications. It is perhaps a sad truth that the word is used in OSS as a >>> cliche or bromide, that OSS is mostly a *hobby* for very smart people >>> (men?) otherwise gainfully employed, but I would like to believe that is >>> not the case. Communities are not built on technicalities, and the concerns >>> of a community extend beyond the technical. >>> >>> >> Also, this is not about code, is it? It’s documentation. >>> >> >> It is about code. Proposed change was against comments in .c files. And >> here are a couple of technical reasons to discuss: >> >> - amount of commits and git history of these files >> - finding author of the original comment, git blame >> - clarity and usefullness of a comment >> >> Other reasons are non-technical and should not be considered. Yes, Rick, >> I do not use underscore. :) >> >> I did a couple of pull requests against node, and very well remember, >> that every single change is an inconvenience. But if it significantly >> improves something, and this improvement outweights the disadvantages that >> every single commit poses, it should be merged. Otherwise it should not. It >> is as simple as that. >> >> In that case I prefer to see "they" honestly, because "user" refers to an >> unlimited number of people. If somebody makes a commit only to change 2 >> words, it should not be merged. Does it improve clarity? Nope. Dixi. >> >> -- >> -- >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >> Posting guidelines: >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "nodejs" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > Richard Marr > -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. 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/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
