Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: >> The reason not to commit a likely contentious patch without prior >> vetting on p5p, is that it comes across as a power play designed to >> get one's way without regard to any merits. > > I was also unhappy with the way this commit was applied, and had specifically > said I wanted prior discussion. And I replied that I didn't want to do work and then sit around waiting for weeks of bikeshed conversation that ultimately isn't about merits but is about personal preferences. We have a version control system. Commits are cheap and can be reverted. If there is "consensus" to revert, then it can be reverted. If not, then it can stay in. It's just the flip side of waiting for "consensus" to apply a commit. The discussion still happens, but the status quo is different, that's all. If the discussion is about merits, then status quo is irrelevant. If the discussion is about personal preference, then group discussion is pretty pointless and the decision ultimately rests with the pumpking anyway. List flamewars just waste everyone's time. > If everybody else wants a development culture in which committers apply > whatever they want, rather than try to figure out what is best, I could work on > my garden instead. If everyone else wants a development culture in which whoever screams loudest for or against change gets their way, I have a garden, too. David -- David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Take back your inbox! → http://www.bunchmail.com/ Twitter/IRC: @xdgThread Previous | Thread Next