> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Grr. You essentially misquoted Brane, by leaving out crucial context.
> Brane's message made his meaning clear. He was saying that a patch
> won't be committed if its style isn't correct. He happened to use the
> word "accepted" instead of "committed", but it's clear he meant
> "accepted into Subversion", since his very next paragraph said this:
> "But I certainly see the techincal side as being more important
> than the stylistic side; if I didn't, I'd have made the final
> tweaks myself and committed the patch by now."
> It is obvious that he meant a stylistically imperfect patch can be
> accepted by the committer, *tweaked by the committer*, and then
> committed. Indeed, he even said that he'd do the tweaks himself!
> You quoted one sentence fragment out of context in order to imply that
> Brane said stylistically imperfect patches would be rejected out of
> hand, even though he explicitly said the opposite. Here is the part
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=103245 in
> which you did this:
> > > We are generally willing to fix up stylistic problems. What we
> > > to do is make it *clear* that we are willing to do so, and that
> > > comments are usually meant to convey a sentiment like: "If
> > > resubmitting this (for substantive reasons) anyway, would you
> > > fixing these stylistic issues as well?".
> > I think you need to "get with the boys" on this one. Branko
> > states, "...because even a technically perfect patch wouldn't be
> > accepted if style wasn't correct" which is contrast to what you
> > saying above. I think one of the minor problems is there isn't
> > official stance on the matter and it's up to an individual
> > to how much effort they are willing to expend.
> Getting this right is important, so in detail, what happened here is:
> - I said committers are willing to fix up stylistic problems (which
> is exactly what Brane said he is willing to do)
> - In response, you quoted Brane out of context in order to
> demonstrate that he disagreed with me. This involved omitting
> the part two sentences later where he said basically the same
> thing I did!
> Valik, you're slowly painting a rather inaccurate picture of how this
> project operates. I worry that people are going to form impressions
> based on your descriptions of how the developers behave, instead of
> from watching how the developers actually behave. I wish you'd be
> more careful.
> I'm done with this thread now. And I think you owe Brane an apology,
> but that's your business.
I did not try to misrepresent Branko. He said what he said. Let me
remind you how the English language works in case you have forgotten.
Related concepts go into a paragraph, together. Unrelated concepts go
into other paragraphs. "Two sentences later" in this case is in a
completely separate paragraph than the quote I cited. I can't even
begin to fathom how you can accuse me of saying I quoted out of context
when what you are citing as "the context" doesn't appear in the
paragraph I quoted from. I took the words that are there, interpreted
them literally via their definition per the English dictionary and
commented on them, obeying the rules of the language in the process.
At the very best, the two paragraphs in the post are conflicting. In
the first, Branko literally states a patch will not be accepted with
style issues. In the next, he says he will fix them up. Those two
paragraph's conflict one another. How can you judge context from two
obviously contradictory paragraphs?
Now, just to be amicable about this, I'll replace "accepted" with
"committed" and the sentence reads, "Of course I could not ignore the
stylistic side, because even a technically perfect patch wouldn't be
committed if style wasn't correct." Now we've got other problems to
deal with. Namely, if Branko's intentions are as you say (Which I am
not in a position to ASSUME), then this sentence is not even necessary.
If Branko is willing to fix up stylistic issues before committing, then
the sentence becomes unnecessary. For all intents and purposes, a
stylistically flawed patch _will_ be committed, it will just have last
minute tweaks by the committer.
I'm only reading what is there, which is the word "accepted". I'm not
reading anything that is not there, which is the word "committed". I
have no need of trying to manipulate quotes to suit my reasons; what do
I gain? I'm an outsider looking in who doesn't really care to be in.
Accusing me of doing something I am not is not exactly the most polite
thing to do. You were quite amicable about all this up until that
I'm not going to argue the picture being painted; you're the project,
the project is always right over the little user. What I will say is
the best way to make the painting you don't like go away is to paint
over it by fixing the problems addressed. Whether you like them or not,
whether you like how it was done or not, whether you like the person
doing it or not, fix it and it'll go away. That's the easiest solution.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Jul 26 22:27:01 2005