begin quoting "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" as of Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:32:08PM +0100: > On 05/11/2013 21:57, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: [snip] > > It's been only a day or two since the patch and I'm still thinking and > > hoping to read more convincing arguments. It would help if the patch > > included an entry in the NEWS file to teach people about it (including > > the color syntax). Otherwise I think only a handful of people will be > > aware of it (nevermind use it). > > Some patches were accepted and the NEWS file was updated later.
Arguably a bad idea, and a lapse in judgement that shouldn't be repeated. > > I don't like the patch because it smells like "let's do it simply because > > "I don't like" -> 1 person. > "I like" -> 3 people. > > Outcome: The patch is not accepted (yet, sorry) At least 2, because any accusation of a code smell requires a deeper investigation (in my book). There's also the distinction between "that's a good feature" and "that's a good way to implement the feature". [chop] > > It is just me being conservative and trying to tell people what I think > > comes close to the edge of acceptance. > > Who set the edge? Can more people change the edge? The edge is based on the aesthetic sensibilities of the curator; better arguments are the way to change the edge, not the tyranny of the majority. If you're not going to have a small team handle the duties and argue among themselves, then you've got to rely on a single curator. You can always fork the repo and run it yourself in parallel. That's the ultimate open-source solution to "I'm unhappy with the curation of $project." [snip] > > And in this particular case you mention I said the patch would be > > accepted if it was not compiled by default. > > I know what you said. But, why (only) you can say what is accepted or > not? Could you accept a patch in the git that you don't agree with? You're talking about forcing him to discard his aesthetic? Someone had better be prepared to pony up some cash and hire him, so overruling that aesthetic sense can be justified. ;-) I *like* that someone is giving pushback on patches that don't meet up with someone's sense of what's appropriate. If some reasonable patches are being rejected or deferred due to some concerns, the _proper_ solution is not to call for a vote, but to engage in reasonable discourse about the pros and cons. (If you can't come up with a con, your pros are meaningless, and can reasonably be ignored. There's always a con, and if it's not out in the open, the whole thing's a con.) [snip] > > I try to be reasonable in my decisions, but I prefer to err on the > > conservative rather than the "accept all patches" side. > > Yes, but there are more people in the mail list. Probably they can help > with the decisionmaking. Let me register a standing thumbs-down vote on any patch based on trying to make WindowMaker more like /other/ window managers. I don't use those other window managers for a *reason*. I'm very selfish... I want it to work well for me. "Looking old" is not a good engineering justification for a change. (On the other hand, I'm also not a fan of hard-coding anything. I'd rather have a configuration file somewhere, even if the values in that file are unknown and unchanging.) -- SJS -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
