[zeromq-dev] CZMQ community & red cards

[Brian Knox]

"That is something the czmq maintainers are exceedingly bad at. The sad
thing is the "we merge everything and then fix it if its broken"
behaviour is in direct opposition to the C4.1 rules."

We do not merge everything and then fix it if it is broken.  Your statement
is empirically false.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b at web.de>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:37:54PM +0200, Benjamin wrote:
> > For me, "misleading" and "hiding" are quite strong words, and griwes
> > rant did not help.
>
> They are just words. Strong, weak? I'm not a walking theasurus or
> whatever that thing is called that lists lots of words meaning the
> same thing. I write mails like I talk, not like writing an essay for
> university admission that you rewrite 20 times until it is perfect.
> English is not my native language and I've always been bad a languages
> so I have even less words to choose from than other people.
>
> So I didn't pick those exact words because I wanted to put any
> emphasis on them. And I hope you do see a difference between "the
> title is misleading" and "you are misleading".
>
> Maybe a better wording would have been:
>
>    I noticed that XXXXXX has code changes while the pull request says
>    documentation changes. Did that get included there by accident?
>
> But that's too late now.
>
> > Linus has some strong views about Github which are related to your
> > points, especially how pull requests work [1]. But that's more of a
> > Github issue in general. In the end you need many people actively
> > engaged in checking code, right? So in that case checking the source
> > code changes (on the level commits or PR's?)
> >
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674
>
> Linus is also verry good (as in efficient and no nonsense) in
> rejecting commits that are bad or questionable. Because of that people
> get angry. But also all commits are sane and uniformly documented.
> Something that makes maintaining and fixing the code so much easier.
>
> That is something the czmq maintainers are exceedingly bad at. The sad
> thing is the "we merge everything and then fix it if its broken"
> behaviour is in direct opposition to the C4.1 rules. The C4.1 has some
> good rules but they only work if everybody follows them. That includes
> me but that also include him. One problem, one patch, one pull
> request. Not two unrelated problems in a single pull request.
>
> The smaller and more specific you make each pull request the easier it
> gets to read them even with githubs interface.
>
> MfG
>         Goswin
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20141016/fc4890a3/attachment.htm>