develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2018

Re: [perl #131046] [PATCH] Carp: Do not crash when reading @DB::args

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
February 24, 2018 03:00
Subject:
Re: [perl #131046] [PATCH] Carp: Do not crash when reading @DB::args
Message ID:
CANgJU+VbKeKkvkStAWChD3V-atCFVubR=bOse7Xg=fQAr3M8PQ@mail.gmail.com
On 24 February 2018 at 02:34, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>>Zefram, that is an uncalled for comment and beneath you.
>
> It is uncalled for to say that there are a couple of problems with
> the commit?  Am I misunderstanding what constitutes civility?

I was referring to "inadequacy of the code change", which I dont feel
is outright uncivil, but IMO is the type of comment that is beneath
someone of your obvious intelligence.

>
>>You had weeks to raise these points and chose to stay silent. Next time try
>>a different strategy. This pasdive-aggressive say nothing until the patch
>>is merged and then ruthlessly criticise what has been merged is not how we
>>are supposed to work together.
>
> This was not some ruse to make you look bad.

Ok, I accept that. But please consider my feedback about your
communication style. You do not need to embed snide comments in your
feedback. It is quite off-putting, even for someone like myself who
has massive respect for you.

> The reason why I didn't
> issue these comments before is that I wasn't aware of your commit message
> and the rest until I examined it just now due to it having landed in
> blead.  It's true that I missed an opportunity to review it when you
> pushed a branch, in that I didn't look at the branch.  I was to some
> extent trusting that your commit would reflect the understanding that
> you had just expressed.

And I still feel it does, however I respect that you feel differently
and will do my best to address your concerns.

Honestly if you had worded things differently I would have been
*happy* to do so.

>
> >From my point of view you didn't drop your objections, you disengaged from
>>the process when challenged.
>
> As I recall, I responded repeatedly when you challenged my objections.
> I don't see any disengagement there.  The point where I stopped responding
> was where you stopped promoting the misconceptions to which I objected.
> You switched to a question of taste, on which I had already stated my
> opinion, and I had nothing further to add in response to your contrary
> opinion.

Well, given I provided a patch to review, and you did not engage my
final mail, and then hit me with a highly opinionated critique after I
pushed it certainly felt very passive-aggressive.

>>That would be the height of rudeness and most inappropriate.
>
> Well, that's part of why I didn't just do it, but floated the idea first.

I will do my best to address this today. However I have other
obligations today, and may not get to it until tomorrow.

Rest assured I will do my best to respond to your feedback in a
mutually satisfactory way.

cheers,
Yves

-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About