On 22/11/2012 10:31, Pieter J. Kersten wrote: > > Hi Alexandre, > > I agree with Joël. I see your points, but this is not a matter of > "best possible code", but of "decent manners". > > There is a saying: "You cannot look a given horse into the mouth". > Meaning: when you are given a unique contribution, it is impolite to > refuse it because you think it could and should have been done better. > You should accept it and - when you have different standards than the > giver - enhance its quality by either contributing bug reports or by > contributing bug fix proposals. Reviewing and learning can be done > afterwards as well. > > Don't endorse mechanisms that enforce impoliteness. >
(resending to list the message I sent in private by mistake) I do not agree with this. If you want a quality product, you have to prevent crap from entering the code base in the first place, which is much easier than cleaning up afterwards. I do look in the mouth of the given horse, because presumably, I'm part of the people who are going to tend the horse, clean it up and take care of it. Once the code is published, it gets deployed. When it is deployed it gets used. And then the problems start. Now concerning the module author issue, I'm merely suggesting that he should try to use the same process. No one is forced to go through this "community" thing, and it is still possible to create your own project and be the sole committer on that project. If you want to join a community, and benefit from it, politeness mandates that you follow the rules and accept that someone else looks at your code. Kind regards, -- Alexandre Fayolle Chef de Projet Tel : + 33 (0)4 79 26 57 94 Camptocamp France SAS Savoie Technolac, BP 352 73377 Le Bourget du Lac Cedex http://www.camptocamp.com _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
