Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
* David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> [2013-06-08 16:35]:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> wrote:
> >So you asked the pumpking before pushing the commit, then?
>
> IRC excerpt follows (unrelated discussions deleted):
So the pumpking refused to say yes, to which you kept saying you really
wanted to, then you went ahead and did it.
On list, you then argue against the objections to what you did by saying
that if it’s about personal preference “then group discussion is pretty
pointless and the decision ultimately rests with the pumpking”.
To paraphrase: “Shut up – unless the pumpking reverts it, I win.”
Did I misunderstand?
Did I, in particular, miss any possibility that you will accept any
argument besides open and active direct opposition by the pumpking?
> Again, for the record, my position is as follows:
>
> * the existing test was too sensitive -- there were too many thing
> that people just regen'd into known issues and few looked at the
> known issues
>
> * normative suggestions ("maybe use F<> instead" type comments)
> shouldn't be fails and needed to be removed
>
> * 79 characters is a good goal -- but this sort of linting should be
> done outside a test (not unlike running valgrind) by those working
> to fix it because it doesn't impact our readiness to ship
>
> * setting a high bar (100 characters) to flag a few worst issues and
> gradually tightening it as things are fixed will do more to
> encourage fixes than an overwhelming list of offending lines
>
> * I have no particular attachment to 100 characters -- it seemed a
> good triage point that balanced between my preference to remove such
> limits entirely and others desire to keep line length limits as
> a fail-able test
>
> * a line length bikeshed discussion on p5p is not a good use of
> anyone's time
>
> I think the overall goal of reducing sensitivity has merit. If enough
> people object so strongly to 100 characters, then ask Rik said, "fine,
> pick a number".
Yes, you have stated this position before. Do you also have something
to say to Karl’s detailed objections, now that he has addressed several
of these aforestated points (on *merit*, which you kept demanding) and
shown some of your claims to be false, or at the very least debatable?
Judging by what has been written on both sides of this issue, it looks
to me that had you wanted to do the right thing for Perl instead of just
address your own desires, then you should have worked on splitting this
up into build tests + optional lint tool – or should have left that work
to someone else to do it that way. And it seems likely that no one would
have objected to that strategy fundamentally, with discussion ensuing at
most about which tests belong on which side of that divide.
Instead you opted for lopping off the lintish parts entirely, with an
attitude of “well *I* don’t care for that stuff, and whoever does can
go… put-it-back-in… themselves”.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next