From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: Lack of netiquette, was Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] New remote-hg helper Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:22:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: <5090EFCA.7070606@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20121031102712.GB30879@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121031185903.GA1480@elie.Belkin> <50927D29.3020703@lsrfire.ath.cx> <5093949D.4070509@op5.se> <5093A873.9090701@drmicha.warpmail.net> <5097860E.5040607@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andreas Ericsson , =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9_Scharfe?= , Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Jonathan Nieder , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Sverre Rabbelier , Ilari Liusvaara , Daniel Barkalow To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 05 16:32:30 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TVOf7-0007jr-Kb for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:32:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933039Ab2KEPbf convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:31:35 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:60637 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932947Ab2KEPWt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:22:49 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h16so5843724oag.19 for ; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:22:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EeaZ8aQwOrqneIBUokwQMXxF3SMyrCN2t0uLBs8yhCA=; b=HOZIuUG4KGPTgeA4HG13DzoYtQmllNrXHXuNkIt0fdu3st+i0KDA/CbOfjMfkRxzCz pHI3kzLLYuqVHN8Xtw3uvUkdqTv9k4oRkcFVUSrUjn2smsW3HZ8aRQ4+ZDbLGhYTvSTu 2OGt6muUt5YRCnwCIf61vKQn133x3nTmTYdFz4AzM9TjCpPoSbgzO3Zsnsi471WRz6RX a8R3YzBh2d5LvVt4xhqMcItaNR6DNVxOSjo9S1j8HdRV2hb0vsJ+lJmWkx+2dxMn6AS8 OafHjBv7+oL0YJzRUlWRrj4GaliX2Kpcy5uYLtq99aOZR0aRF78Qeg0GUGR7fzoMlt0z wAkA== Received: by 10.182.116.6 with SMTP id js6mr7947844obb.82.1352128968898; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.4.74 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:22:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5097860E.5040607@drmicha.warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 02.11.2012 17:09: >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael J Gruber >> wrote: >>> Andreas Ericsson venit, vidit, dixit 02.11.2012 10:38: >>>> On 11/01/2012 02:46 PM, Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Also, and I'm sure you didn't know that, "Jedem das Seine" (to ea= ch >>>>> his own) was the slogan of the Buchenwald concentration camp. Fo= r >>>>> that reason some (including me) hear the unspoken cynical >>>>> half-sentence "and some people just have to be sent to the gas >>>>> chamber" when someone uses this proverb. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It goes further back than that. >>>> >>>> "Suum cuique pulchrum est" ("To each his own is a beautiful thing"= ) is >>>> a latin phrase said to be used frequently in the roman senate when >>>> senators politely agreed to disagree and let a vote decide the out= come >>>> rather than debating further. >>>> >>>> Please don't let the twisted views of whatever nazi idiot thought = it >>>> meant "you may have the wrong faith and therefore deserve to die, = so you >>>> shall" pollute it. The original meaning is both poetic and democra= tic, >>>> and I firmly believe most people have the original meaning to the = fore >>>> of their mind when using it. After all, very few people knowingly = quote >>>> nazi concentration camp slogans. >>>> >>> >>> In fact, many German terms and words are "forbidden area" since Naz= i >>> times, but I don't think this one carries the same connotation. >>> >>> But that is a side track. >>> >>> Collaboration (and code review is a form of collaboration) requires >>> communication. The linked code of conduct pages describe quite well= how >>> to ensure a productive environment in which "everyone" feels comfor= table >>> communicating and collaborating. >> >> Yes, but that's assuming we want "everyone" to feel comfortable >> communicating and collaborating. > > I put "everyone" in quotes because you can never reach 100%, so > "everyone" means almost everyone. > > Undeniably, the answers in this and the other threads show that on th= e > git mailing list, "everyone" wants "everyone" to feel comfortable > communicating and collaborating. And that might be a mistake. Because "everyone" doesn't include the people that are able to put personal differences aside, and concentrate on technical merits. >> I cite again the example of the Linux >> kernel, where certainly not "everyone" feels that way. But somehow > > It's a different list with different standards and tone, so it doesn'= t > really matter for our list. That being said: If you don't want to take into consideration what the most successful software project in history does... up to you. >> they manage to be perhaps the most successful software project in >> history. And I would argue even more: it's _because_ not everyone >> feels comfortable, it's because ideas and code are criticized freely= , >> and because only the ones that do have merit stand. If you are able = to >> take criticism, and you are not emotionally and personally attacked = to >> your code and your ideas, you would thrive in this environment. If y= ou >> don't want your precious little baby code to fight against the big >> guys, then you shouldn't send it out to the world. > > For one thing, contributors on the kernel list are open to technical > arguments, and that includes the arguments of others; just like we ar= e > here. On the other hand, you seem to rebuke "any" (most) technical > argument in harsh words as if it were a personal attack; at least tha= t's > how your answers come across to me (and apparently others). That real= ly > makes it difficult for most of us here to argue with you technically, > which is a pity. That lack of openness for the arguments of others wo= uld > make your life difficult on the kernel list also. It doesn't. And I don't. There is no lack of openness from my part. I hear all technical arguments, and I reply on a technical basis. The problem seems to be is that you expect the code submitted to be criticized, but not the criticism it receives. IOW; the submitter has to put up with anything anybody says about his/her code and ideas, but the *reviewer* is untouchable; the submitter cannot ever criticize the reviewer. I can tell you that doesn't happen in the Linux kernel; the review process is a _discussion_, not a one-way communication, and discussions can be heated up, but the end result is better code, *both* sides are open to criticism, the submitter, *and* the reviewer. It seems to me that you think in the git mailing list the submitter should never put in question the criticism of the reviewer. If that's not the case, show me a single instance when I rebuke technical arguments in *harsh* words... perhaps, you think any rebuking is "harsh". Specifically, show me an instance were *I* was harsh, and the reviewer was not. If you cannot show instances of this, then your statement that I rebuke harshly doesn't stand; I rebuke, that's all. > A completely different issue is that of language. You talk German on = a > German list and English on an international list. You talk "kernel > English" on the kernel list, which is full of words and phrases you > would never use in a normal social setting where you talk to people i= n > person; it would be completely unacceptable. Here on the Git list, we > prefer to talk like in a normal, albeit colloquial social setting. If > you're open for advice: just imagine talking to the people here in > person, to colleagues across your desk, and you have a good guideline= =2E If a submitter cannot rebuke, why would I want to contribute to such a project? If we cannot speak openly why would I want to contribute? I wouldn't. > And no, using the same or similar language does not make us the same = at > all. Using the same language is the natural prerequisite for successf= ul > communication. Nobody said otherwise. > Felipe, please try to see the efforts many of us are making here in > order to keep you as a contributor, and reward it by accepting the > advice to revise your language: colleague to colleague. Thanks, but no thanks. I contribute on my free time, and if contributing is not a fun process, why would I? It seems to me that you feel you are not only entitled to my code, but to never criticize back. I've seen this happen multiple times now, when I send patches, which are a *contribution*, and the reviewers expect me to address every and all issues they raise without criticizing back, or that somehow it's my *responsibility* to address their concerns, even if I don't agree. I'm sorry but it's not. In a truly technical project code speaks, and if you as a reviewer feel something has to be changed, and the submitter (which is acting on his/her own volition and free time) is not willing to do it, he/her himself/herself can take the code and do whatever modifications to it, or the commit message, seem necessary. *Not* to keep bashing the submitter until they do it exactly as they want as if somehow it was their *responsibility*. The spirit of open source is *collaboration*, and what you seem to expect here is that I do everything. Not only do I have to come up with the code, I have to come up with a full book chapter of commit message explaining all the history and introducing how the code works to people unfamiliar with it, and I have to hear review criticism without arguing back, and I have to implement it even if I disagree, and I have to be careful about what every word I say might be taken by people from other cultures (but they don't), and I can never say anything that might under certain circumstances and assumptions be considered offensive (even though they can). And never criticize back the hidden guidelines. This is not collaborative, this only ensures that you will get a very specific kind of contributors. If what you want is a closely-knitted circle of friends that are like-minded, then this seems like the right approach. If what you want is to have a good project, with good code, it might no= t. Cheers. --=20 =46elipe Contreras