> I agree, this shouldn’t have been a “good first issue”.
You might be right, but in hindsight it’s always easier to judge. In advance it
was not at all
obvious to me at all that this pull request would be discussed so
controversially.
For me, the task had all properties which in my view make
I think this highly depends on a person’s character - sensitive or insensitive
for instance. Communicating online makes it even harder to know one’s emotion
behind the screens/comments.
I am kinda agree with Richard that the issues with label "good first issue”
could be treated a little more
You forget that this is done in public, i.e. others are looking at how
we treat those who do come forward and submit code to some bite size
issue. So while @agnosticdev may have enough skin on his nose,
onlookers that are considering whether they should contribute may not.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019
I appreciate your concerns Richard, but I believe they are unwarranted in this
case fortunately.
First, my impression is that the discussion between was objective all the time
and far from being heated up with emotions.
Second, looking at the profile of the contributor, one can assert that he
I’m not disputing the great effort put into this.
My dispute is that it should be under the openssl list command…..
I agree, this shouldn’t have been a “good first issue”.
Pauli
--
Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia
>
... or how our usual style of dispute can sometimes deter help from
the community.
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9912
In this PR, there's a lot of discussions going on, a bit back an
forth, about the right way to do things, and what does what like what
other thing and so on.
This is
