On 15/05/16 01:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong language of >> "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual did not perform the >> necessary QA actions before committing? > He actually didn't "state" anything at all - he posted a set of > rhetorical questions. And the use of "seriously" was inflammatory. > In fact, if you're trying to avoid injecting passion into a discussion > it is worth thinking carefully about just about any word ending in > "ly" that you put into a sentence. Nine times out of ten the word > isn't necessary and can cause more harm than good. > >> Both of which are completely called >> for and appropriate. No vulgarity, insults, or demeaning words were used. > I disagree. The tone was uncivil and demeaning. > >> How would you have responded professionally? >> > How about this: > > You inserted this code snippet into the middle of a command line, so > it is certain to break in either case. This should have been detected > during testing; please be sure to test changes to ebuilds/eclasses > before committing them. Additionally eclass changes should be > submitted to the lists for review in any case prior to being > committed. > > Or by all means refer the issue to QA/Comrel if you want to escalate it. > > I'm in no way suggesting that we should accept bad commits. IMO when > we see bad commits we should: > > 1. Just point them out politely if it is a one-off. ANYBODY can make > a mistake. > 2. If they're a trend or show signs of bad practices like not testing > changes then escalate to QA/Comrel. > 3. Let QA/Comrel do their job and block commit access or refer the > dev for more mentoring/etc as appropriate. Then we actually fix the > problem instead of just yelling at each other. > +1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
