> I understood it as a comment about all major parties involved in this discussion and not to cause any harm.
Ditto. > PS. No bike-shedding intended. Hah! Well, I see it as a positive sign - if the need to discuss seemingly "trivial" issues is high, such as individual linebreaks, that usually means that they're more of a lightning rod getting all the energy instead of seeing lightning strike everywhere on non-"trivial" things. The energy invested in those discussions is an indication of the passion for the status quo and not exactly for or against... things like individual linebreaks. All of which is to be expected. So for me, I take it as an indication that we're getting along pretty well here. And yes, the openness is indeed a very positive thing! I have seen things go very wrong and developers getting very defensive for the heck of it. For me, right now, there are three or four larger changes to commit to my little trove of PRs - mainly the "no one-liner ifs" rule, which requires an in-depth manual path - and then we're getting pretty close to having an agreement. These are the remaining disagreements: 1. Linebreaks separating variable declaration blocks Discussion: https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/pull/109#discussion-diff-6064999 I think for this, we will end up reverting some of the changes that I made. But we still have to discuss the details - It's just mainly about the other devs telling me in what instances it would be permissible to separate blocks. 2. (very minor) One-time use variable declarations Discussion: https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/pull/114#discussion-diff-6102900 Only happened once so far, I think. Not sure where Thomas stands on it now. 3. Linebreaks before ifelse / else statements Discussion: https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/pull/114#discussion-diff-6102891 I must say this is really the only one that I feel strongly that the codebase should break with tradition because I think that doing it this way makes it very hard to follow the code. There is also no standard I have seen so far that encourages linebreaks there (I know, I know, appeal to popularity). In most cases, I think what everybody would prefer is proper separation into individual functions or rewriting the structure in some other way, so maybe Alec and Thomas will accept that removing the linebreaks is a temporary thing until we arrive at something better. 4. Whether or not I have hobbies Discussion: https://github.com/roundcube/roundcubemail/pull/115#issuecomment-23606813 Yes. The answer is yes. -David On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Raoul Bhatia <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03.09.2013 00:14, David Deutsch wrote: > >> "Roundcube, code proudly cleant by argumenting trolls" >>> >> >> For what it's worth, I found it pretty funny, so: I'll take it! ;-) >> > > I understood it as a comment about all major parties > involved in this discussion and not to cause any harm. > > I encourage discussion on how to efficiently work on a successful open > source project like roundcube. However, there is always the chance of > too much policies and regulation instead of common sense and flexibility > to know when rules are better bent. > > Finally, i want to thank David for his commitment and ability to keep > things moving, as well as Alec and Thomas for their openess and > coorporation in this regard. > > I think, i might not be the only one who feels this way! > > Cheers, > Raoul > PS. No bike-shedding intended. > > ______________________________**_________________ > Roundcube Development discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.roundcube.net/**mailman/listinfo/dev<http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev> >
_______________________________________________ Roundcube Development discussion mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
