Oswald Buddenhagen writes:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 08:03:34PM +0000, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Oswald Buddenhagen writes: ...
i associate that term means opposition to change - and that obviously
makes no sense for historical states.
also, i find this kind of "opensource" bashing rather ridiculous.
Oh, sorry. I meant to say that opensource naysaying tends to resemble other
opensource naysaying. There's enough naysaying in closed-source work too,
but in my experience the two are somewhat different. I didn't meant to say
that one kind is worse than the other.
Rather resembles that post about the costs of reformatting, if you
don't mind my saying so.
i find that comparison quite bizarre. you may want to elaborate.
Short, negative, lacking in detail yet sounds plausible.
Go on, tell me what's "not something to be proud of" about that.
just from scrolling through it i see inconsistencies.
and that's just the start, because you were just a handful people at the
time. also, the history is full of bugfixes hidden in epic whitespace
cleanups (or messups), and whole-file-ping-pong, because some people
clearly were incapable of getting crlf conversions straight. and don't
get me started about commit atomicity and the standards some people had
for commit messages.
Trolltech during my time was very much an agile development shop.
adaptability is not a licence to create a total mess. *you* may not
care, but others do.
Total mess, you say. I picked two thousand-commit sequences, sorted by size
and started looking from the biggest, on the theory that total messes are
big. Whole-file pingpong causes large diffs, for example. In both cases one
of the ten biggest commits was largely cosmetic.
(I said my commits contained cosmetics. They did in principle; I wrote a
whitespace-fixing emacslisp hook while at Trolltech, and ran on the entire
file before every commit from then on. Whitespace is a chore and chores are
for computers.)
and yes, i read your posts about gerrit. you're my enemy.
Last post from me then.
Arnt
