pkx1...@posteo.net writes: > Anyway to answer Karlin's request, I am probably the last person in > the 'dev' team to worry about. Yes I seem to do a lot of 'work' but it > *is* just 'janitorial' duties (which is a rather good way to explain > it) and, assuming we do manage to get the automation suggestions in > place then there will be no need of what I do, which will be much > better for the project (I hope).
The manual comparison of visuals is still not going to do itself. But yes, it would be better if the procedures took care of more stuff that computers can do similarly well to people, given the kind of exact instructions computers need. > Anyway, the point is that nothing I do here is as very significant > compared to those developers that actually write 'code' (I am not > looking for sympathy here, I am merely stating what I believe), I hope you will not mind if I believe otherwise. The whole "janitorial" procedures have been designed to put grease to the wheels that, in the form of developers responsible for the "actual" progress, can lean quite to the squeeky side. I perfectly well remember the tensions that arose when we were working with a single master and all developers ground to a halt for days on end because somebody committed something that had some trivial oversight somewhere. Or because weeks later someone complained that his use case looked much worse than before. Now it's easy to say "that's work that anyone can do" (though not entirely correct, particularly given the rather inconspicuous manner in which you substitute scripts that are falling apart with manual labour, something one all too easily forgets), doing so reliably for years and years on end makes it a fixture of stability. That the sometimes heated developer discussions are an antithesis of. Or, more poetically, your work turns a scrapyard of tools into a home one returns to. > so my opinions about a CoC are, in the grand scheme of things, not > going to affect the code base of LP (i.e. you won't be losing a useful > developer so to speak), but I was more and more objecting to the > seemingly selected deafness/blind-eye turning of some of the people > commenting on this CoC thread as if it was all 'sweetness and > light'. So without any real skin to loose in this game I spoke up. > > If we end up waiting for the automation stuff to be working and THEN > implement the CoC (or this GNU Happy Place Pamhplet) It's not really a set of rules, just a bunch of advice that has some chance of working. Basically it was Stallman's way of saying "we don't need a Code of Conduct with its enforcement mechanisms if people try giving others the benefit of doubt some more and take some care to avoid escalation, and here are a few tips for that". They won't help against willful and/or unabating provocations: where they turn disruptive, one will still have to think about what to do then. It has happened, but we got through. > then it won't affect the project at all as my current duties will be > voided (and again, that is fine). But if this CoC was, as it was > seeming as of yesterday, a foregone conclusion (unlike the Automation) > then I thought I better warn the dev team so they could at least plan > for my absence. > > Maybe this will help focus minds on the automation? > > If so, then something positive would have come out of this CoC thread > after all. Frankly, the state of the automatation is pitiful, but we were also partly laboring from a dearth of API documentation IIRC as well as a lack of people versed in the respective programming languages/systems/frameworks. Lame excuses, I know. At any rate, things on my plate tend to make me panic, and you give more a steady vibe of clearing plates rather than stacking things up. Which may not necessarily always act to your advantage, but quite to that of the project. -- David Kastrup My replies have a tendency to cause friction. To help mitigating damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".