On 02/09/2016 09:11 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/
(His particular suggestion about accept patches by default is not why I
post this).
Just read the rest of the article. That's a REALLY good article.
Especially these bits:
===============================
"Consider the following outcomes, which happen with some regularity:
* [...]
* Objections that the problem should be solved another way, but that are
accompanied without any volunteers to do it that way. A patch in the
hand is better than two in the bush. If somebody does end up doing it
the “right” way someday, git revert is only 10 keystrokes. The fact that
someday a better patch might appear is not an argument against merging
an adequate patch right now.
* Bare assertions that there is no need for the feature, when the fact
that somebody wrote a patch should be primae facie evidence that the
feature was needed"
-------------------
"Really, what I’m asking is this: Which is more convincing? Concrete
computer code authored by someone with first-hand knowledge of the
defect? Or the bare assertion that something is wrong with it? I mean,
either one might be correct. But the first is better supported."
==============================
Really like: "A patch in the hand is better than two in the bush."
