On 10 Sep 2014 16:40, "Ivan Zhakov" <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>
> Brane,
>
> On 9 September 2014 19:15, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > I'm not in the mood to split hairs right now (those who need to
> > know why). I'll just say that I haven't had time to
> > review the revprop cache branch, so obviously I can neither
> > approve nor veto it. The general approach was
> > discussed at the hackathon in Sheffield, and I did agree with that.
>
> Could you please stop putting pressure on other developers when
> you haven't actually read the code discussed?
You vetoed some change in the code. I asked you to produce concrete
arguments for your veto. If you call that pressure, you're on the wrong
list.
> I have technical objections related to the general quality of the
> new code. The best way to find out more is to review this code by
> yourself!
No. It's your veto and therefore the burden of evidence is on you. "General
quality of code" is the same kind of nonsense argument as "code churn." By
that criterion, we'd have never released 1.0.
Throwing diffs my way that you know damn well I can produce myself is just
avoiding the issue. You're obviously able to point out concrete problems in
other parts of the code, so I can't understand why that's so hard in the
case of log addressing. Maybe you see issues there that I missed, so
please, once again, take the time to point them out. You may even help the
author learn something.
Sure, it's a lot of work. So is writing this mail on a phone while lying in
hospital, but no-one else is likely to do it for me.
> Once again. It's totally counterproductive to discuss issues related
> to the quality and over-complication of code if one of the parties
> doesn't know anything about the particular code
And once again you're making assumptions about what I do or don't know ...
and totally missing the point, which I hope I explained clearly enough
above.
-- Brane
Received on 2014-09-10 23:37:37 CEST